Si�n James: This has not been an easy time for anybody seeking work, and we in Swansea, East have also faced challenges. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the work that Jobcentre Plus has done is absolutely fantastic. I want to commend the work of our local Jobcentre Plus in Morriston. Will the Secretary of State ensure that as publicity and promotion is made available, both for employers experiencing difficulties and for those seeking work, to promote the work of jobcentres?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful, again, for the right hon. Gentleman's questions about this, because it allows me to explain to the public everything that is being done, and everything that we intend to do. As far as the antivirals are concerned, we are increasing our order from the 35 million that we now have to 50 million. These are only brought into use, normally, where symptoms of the flu are discovered, so we feel that we are well prepared at the moment, but it is right to increase the coverage of the population, and of course it is right to help national health service staff who may be exposed to the flu.
	As far as face masks are concerned, let me say that there are large numbers in stock but we have got to do more, and we have now ordered, and are ordering, several million more masks. These orders will come in over the next few days and weeks, and we are determined to have what is necessary. May I say, so that there is no confusion on this, that the face masks are what are necessary for the NHS staff? The guidance that has been given by the chief medical officer about what the public can do, and the guidance that we will send out in the information note from next weekit will be on the website a lot earlierwill not refer to a need for the public to have such a face mask. This is for NHS staff who are in circumstances where they come up to people who are perhaps facing, or suffering from, that flu. That is what the face masks are for. I hope that there will be no doubt in the public's mind that the advice given by the chief medical officer over the last few days about how people can best prevent the flu and prepare themselves for it is the advice that we stand by, and the Health Secretary will reinforce that this evening.

Gordon Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman is proposing this, presumably he knows the numbers involved, but I do not hear either him or the Liberal party saying the numbers that would be involved in this particular cause that has been put forward. Of course I am prepared to look at it. I will always look at suggestions that are made, so that we can see whether they are applicable, but what I would like the House to consider is that in stages we have made great progress; we must balance the public expenditure requirements of this country with the needs of those who want to come into our country. There are 1,300 cases under review, so I accept that people are waiting for results, but we have promised that these results will come by 11 June. We are determined to honour the service that the Gurkhas give. We have been very proud of what they have done for our country. We have made major changes over the last few years. We are prepared now to make major changes again, and we are prepared to continue to review the situation for the future, but that must be based on proper facts and figures and on the ability to make decisions that we can afford.

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, that expenditure is over more than 20 years. As he also knows, we wish to use the fact of our deterrent to bring about non-proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world and to persuade other countries to be part of a process of nuclear disarmament. At the moment there is an opportunity for the major powers to reduce their nuclear weapons and in return we could get agreements about non-proliferation of nuclear weapons from some of the major powers, while at the same time offering them the right that they should have to civil nuclear power. He may remember that the non-proliferation treaty was based on two principles: first, that countries with nuclear weapons would cut their nuclear weapons, and secondly, that we would give non-nuclear states access to civil nuclear power. Given the pressures that exist at the moment, that is an even more relevant position than it was 50 years ago.

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, following my visits to Pakistan and Afghanistan earlier this week, I should like to make a statement on the Government's strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	First, I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to all those serving in our armed forces, and remember with gratitude those who have given their lives in the service of our country. As I saw again on Monday, our armed forces are facing enormous challenges with great skill, determination and courage. They are the best in the world, and we are immensely proud of them.
	Our counter-terrorist strategy, published last month, set out how we are working to tackle terrorism around the globe, but one priorityindeed, the greatest international priorityis the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are the crucible for global terrorism, the breeding ground for international terrorists, and the source of a chain of terror that links the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the streets of Britain.
	Pakistan and Afghanistan are of course different countries at different stages of development, but as the document we are publishing today emphasises, together they face this shared challenge of terrorism. In Afghanistan, the Afghan Taliban are using mines and suicide bombs to carry out attacks on our troops and on innocent civilians. In Pakistan, the army and security services are now dealing with the wider territorial ambitions made clear by the Pakistan Taliban. Last year alone in Pakistan itself, 2,000 civilians and security personnel were killed in terrorist attacks. Suicide bombs in Pakistan, once relatively rare, were used 60 times last year and are at the same level this yearan almost tenfold rise in over two years.
	We know that terrorist leaders are orchestrating attacks around the world from the border areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we know also of the stronger connections that now exist between the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban, and between them and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. That requires us to take further, more determined and concerted action.
	In our December 2007 strategy, we made the right long-term decisions for Afghanistan, decisions that were reinforced in the conclusions of the United States' review last month. Now, following our own review to identify what is working and where we need to go further, I want to set out an updated strategy for our actions in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and how we will mobilise our resources to take those actions. In both countries we are working with the elected Governments, including through our commitments to support their economic development and through combined development and stabilisation expenditure of 255 million, 256 million and 339 milliona total of almost 1 billion over three years. In both countries our involvement is focused on the tasks that are necessary to enable them to counter the terrorist threat themselves.
	For Afghanistan, our strategy is to ensure that the country is strong enough as a democracy to withstand and overcome the terrorist threat, and strengthening Afghan control and resilience will require us to intensify our work in the following key areas. First, we will build up the Afghan police and army and the rule of law, and we should now adopt the stated goal of enabling district by district, province by province handover to Afghan control. Secondly, we want to strengthen Afghan democracy at all levels, including by ensuring credible and inclusive elections and improving security through that period. Thirdly, we want to help strengthen local government in Afghanistan, not least the traditional Afghan structures such as the local shuras. Fourthly, we want to give people in Afghanistan a stake in their future, promoting economic development as the best way of helping the Afghan people to achieve not just stability but prosperity.
	In Pakistan, our strategy to tackle the same underlying problem of terrorism results in different proposals. First, we want to work with the elected Government and the army, but while Afghanistan's forces are at an early stage and so international forces have to play a front-line role, by contrast Pakistan has a large and well funded army, and we want to work with it to help it counter terrorism by taking more control of the border areas. Secondly, not least through support for education and development, we want to prevent young people from falling under the sway of violent and extremist ideologies.
	Let me address the proposals in turn. As I said to the House in December 2007, success in strengthening Afghanistan to withstand terrorism will ultimately depend on building the Afghans' capacity to take control of their own security, so we want to work to build up the Afghan army from its current strength of 80,000 to a total of 134,000 by late 2011. I believe that we will need even greater numbers than that for the future. Already 300 of our forces in Helmand are dedicated to training them. Nationally, we are leading the training of non-commissioned officers and have trained over 18,000, and together with France we have also trained over 1,000 army officers. As many Members know, Afghan army brigades have fought bravely alongside our troops, as we saw in a major operation to drive insurgents out of Nad Ali earlier this year, and 90 per cent. of the Afghan public see their army as an honest and fair institution.
	However, the same is not yet true of the police, and that must be achieved if Afghans are to spread the rule of law throughout their country. We have 120 civilian and military advisers working with the police, and I can tell the House that, as resources are freed from the south as the US moves in, we will over time shift the balance of our operations away from front-line combat and towards an enhanced contribution to training both the army in Afghanistan and its police.
	At its 60th anniversary summit last month, the NATO alliance unanimously agreed that supporting the Afghans to build a stronger democratic Afghanistan was its highest priority. Afghanistan is about to hold its second presidential election. A safe, credible and inclusive election is essential. We are providing 15 million for election support, and President Karzai has given me further personal assurances about his determination to ensure credible, inclusive elections. I also reiterated to him the concerns that we and the whole world have about the Shi'a family law, and I welcome his decision to review that draft Bill. I urged him to step up his Government's efforts to tackle the corruption that has discouraged Afghans from backing democracy against the Taliban, and I made it clear that we will support the Afghan Government as they take forward the process of reconciliation.
	Our aim is to divide, isolate and then remove the insurgents and offer those prepared to renounce violence and accept the Afghan constitution the prospect of work and security. However, those who refuse must prepare for a long and difficult battle, in which there can be only one winner: democracy and a strong Afghan state.
	Just as the Afghans need to take control of their own security, they also need to build legitimate governance. So we will strengthen our efforts on localisation, civilianisation and the promotion of economic development so that Afghan people have a stake in their future. Our local joint civilian and military teams are supporting the Afghan social outreach programme in Helmand. In key districts, we are helping district governors reach out to the traditional tribal system through shuras, which, as I saw on Monday, are now empowering local solutions to local problems. To support that, we have doubled the number of deployed civilian experts. We are encouraging other countries to follow that example and urging the United Nations to play a greater role in co-ordinating the civilian effort. Last month, the Secretary of State for International Development announced an additional 50 million for development assistance. Today he is publishing his Afghanistan country plan.
	Britain remains Afghanistan's third biggest donor, with more than 500 million committed over the next four years. In Helmand, that allows us to support the building of a road to Lashkar Gah and the refurbishment of the hydropower dam, from which up to 200,000 people will benefit through irrigation. We are also investing 30 million over four years to work with the Government on a new programme of agricultural support, which includes the wheat-seed programme in Helmand as a viable alternative to poppy and, nationally, improved access to credit so that more Afghans can invest in farming.
	Following my visit last December, the Defence Secretary and I approved a temporary increaseuntil Augustin the number of British troops deployed to Afghanistan, from just over 8,000 to around 8,300. Now, to strengthen security throughout the election period, I have authorised a further increase to 9,000 until the autumn. To ensure that our forces are properly protected, especially from the growing threat of mines and roadside bombs, we will deploy permanent additional units for that purpose. Some are in the process of deploying now, with others joining them soon. After the election and through the autumn, we plan to return our troop numbers to 8,300. As always, we will keep the position under review, based on the situation on the ground.
	I am determined that Britain will fulfil its international commitments. I believe that, with a deployment of more than 8,000 troops, concentrated in the Taliban heartland of the south, and with the additional costs of the reservewhich increased from 700 million in 2006 to 1.5 billion in 2007-08, then to 2.6 billion in 2008-09, with last week's Budget estimating 3 billion for 2009-10we are shouldering our share of the burden in Afghanistan. As more NATO troops deploy to the south, we will be able to share that burden more fairly. At the NATO summit this year, allies offered around 5,000 more troops in addition to the extra 21,000 combat and training troops that the United States plans to deploy, many of whom are destined for the south. I also welcome the additional Australian deployment announced this morningan extra 450 personnel, bringing the total of Australian troops to around 1,550.
	We will continue to place the highest priority on the safety of our forces, providing the necessary funding, with more than 1 billion in urgent operational requirements for vehicles in the past three years, including Mastiff patrol vehicles, which are among the best protected in the world. We have increased helicopter numbers and flying hours by 60 per cent. in the past two years.
	It has become increasingly clear in the past year just how crucial Pakistan and its border areas with Afghanistan have become to stability in Afghanistan and to our national security at home. Those border areas are used by violent extremists as a base for launching attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan. As President Obama said, al-Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within. Although the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan are different and require distinct approaches, we can no longer consider the terrorist threats arising in the two countries in isolation from each other.
	While in Pakistan I met President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and former Prime Minister Sharif and we discussed stronger action against terrorism and violent extremism. We are agreeing clear shared principles for our bilateral relationship: that terrorism and violent extremists present the most significant threat to both Britain and Pakistan; and that, throughout Pakistan and especially in the border areas, there must be long-term good governance and economic development to underpin progress on security.
	To deliver on those principles we agreed an enhanced strategic dialogue to bring together our senior diplomatic, military and intelligence teams on a more regular basis. We will support that closer co-operation immediately, through a 10 million programme of counter-terrorism capacity-building, working with Pakistan's police and security services. As Pakistan steps up the fight on terrorism, so we will focus greater attention on the basic human challenges that Pakistan still faces in education, health and respect for human rights, in each of which failure serves only to fuel radicalisation.
	Britain's development programme in Pakistan will become our second largest worldwide. We will provide 665 million in assistance over the next four years, but we will refocus much of our aid, including more than 125 million of education spending, on the border areas of Pakistan. We are working for the establishment of a World Bank trust fund for development in those border areas and we will press other countries to increase their contribution. With UK support, the recent Friends of Pakistan meeting and the donor conference in Tokyo have already delivered pledges of $5 billion over the next two years. Next month President Zardari will visit the UK. We will take forward our shared efforts to tackle terrorism. We will support economic development and harness the international community's assistance for Pakistan, but we will also continue our discussions to agree a concordat to strengthen our practical co-operation to meet all the terrorist challenges.
	Forty countries and more have shown the international community's long-term commitment to Afghanistan. In December 2007 we led the way with our proposals to complement the brave action of our troops by building up the Afghan army and police and local government to give Afghans more control over their own affairs. Tackling terrorism in and from the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan drives forward our new set of proposals today. We will complement the necessary military action with economic, social and political progress aimed at building stronger and more effective democracies and strengthening the ability of the Afghan and Pakistan authorities to take greater responsibility for action against terrorism, building the strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan upon which their security and our security here in Britain ultimately depend. I commend this statement to the House.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for that level of agreement about what the strategy has to be, now and in the future, and I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the focus has to be greater than ever on the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan, from where so much terrorist activity happens. We all have a shared interest: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Britain. Two thirds of the attacks or plots in Britain come from Pakistan, and 2,000 Pakistanis died last year and as many are dying this year as a result of terrorist plots. We know that the Taliban in Afghanistan have been active in killing not just British soldiers but civilians who refuse to abide by their wishes.
	In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's specific questions, yes, it is right to focus the Pakistan army and security services on the border areas. It is true that the federally administered tribal areas and the North West Frontier have never been fully brought under control by a democratic Government in Pakistan. It is also true, however, that there are 120,000 troops from Pakistan on the Afghan border, although of course the major effort has been reserved for protecting the border with India. We are working with the Pakistani army, so that it can be trained in counter-terrorism capability. Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, was with me in Pakistan and met General Kiani, the head of the Pakistani forces. There is ever closer co-operation between our two countries on these issues, and we have put 10 million immediately into counter-terrorism support in Pakistan. At the same time, we want to see regular conferences at diplomatic, military and political levels to look at the problems that we face.
	It is true that there are well publicised incidents in Pakistan of the Pakistan Taliban gaining more control, but it is also true that there have been huge operations by the Pakistan armytwo days ago, yesterday and, I believe, todayto take on the Taliban. The army has been very active in trying to deal with this issue. There was of course a motion passed in the Pakistan Assembly that allowed sharia law in a particular place, but I believe that the parliamentarians are now reconsidering that decision.
	On Afghanistan, it is right to say that police training has been slow. It is therefore essential that we do more. There is a big NATO effortthe Germans were in the leadand it is important, as we discuss these things with the Americans and our European partners, that the emphasis is on training the Afghan army and police. The Afghan army is to rise to 134,000. My own view, and that of the Defence Secretary, is that that will still be too small a number, given the terrain in Afghanistan, and that we will probably have to train far more Afghan soldiers. That is why a lot of our resources will be devoted to training.
	We are reconfiguring our troops in Afghanistan for one very precise reason: the tactics of the Taliban have become those of guerrilla warfare. The use of roadside devices and improvised explosive devices has become common, and we have to prepare and arm our troops to deal with that problem and reconfigure our numbers in those areas where there has been significant trouble. When I was in Lashkar Gah, an operation was going on not so far away, and the bravery and dedication of our troops in clearing the areas so that they can sustain communities that are free from the Taliban was very impressive indeed.
	The Leader of the Opposition raised the question of development expenditure. He is absolutely right to say that we are trying to combine the measures, militarily and politically, that will help to strengthen the Afghan state and the Pakistani democracy, while, as they take on the terrorists, providing support for development so that people can see that they have a stake in the future. In the northern part of Pakistan, we are offering a very substantial redirection of aid, enabling 300,000 childrengirlsto go to school, and the provision of books that will teach people the history of Pakistan and not the teaching of the madrassahs. That additional expenditure on education goes side by side with what we are trying to do to restore and gain democratic footholds in those areas.
	In Afghanistan, the key areas are not just education and health. There are 6.5 million children at school, and we have been building health centres, but there is also new development on roads, the building of dams and irrigation in agriculture. The agricultural seed programme is very successful. I talked to Governor Mangal in Helmand, and he believes that all those things are moving forward. Our strategy is therefore exactly the same as the American strategy announced a month or two ago. In December 2007, we set down the idea of Afghanisation as the way forward, and our strategy now is to back up democratically elected Governments and to ensure that the elections are fair15 million has been put into election organisation. Incidentally, electoral registration has been going very well. There could be two rounds in the election and there must be proper monitors. We have to bring in people from outside to perform that role, but on this occasion there must be Afghan monitors as well.
	Our strategy is to combine support for the developing institutions of Afghanistan and of Pakistan with development aid, so that people know that they have an economic and social stake in the future. I believe that that is the right strategy not just for Afghanistan and Pakistan, but for Britain.

Gordon Brown: I am sorry to start on a discordant note, but the duty of the Government is to protect the citizens of our country, and we have to take what action we think is necessarybased on decisions made by the police and, in cases, the judiciaryto protect the security of the citizens of our country. That is exactly what we did and exactly what we will continue to do.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's points about Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are raising the number of troops during the election period to 9,000 to ensure that the elections can proceed without intimidation and without violence, following the registration of the voters. I am confidentbecause of that increased number and because 10 other countries have committed to provide additional troops during this period to the tune of 5,000, as well as the additional representation of American forcesthat we will see an election that I hope will be free and fair. It will need Afghan monitors as well as outside monitors for the terrain to be fully covered, but I hope that we have taken the measures necessary for that.
	On the longer-term strategy for Afghanistan, I repeat that our aim is that Afghan people themselves can take more control over their own affairs, so I see a process where, province by province, as has happened in Kabul, Afghan control can be established in the different areas of the country, obviously starting with the north. Parts of the Helmand area could, over time, be passed over to local control. For that, we need greater Afghan army numbers and greater professionalism on behalf of the Afghan police. We also need to support the local shuras and local government in the tasks that they carry out, and that is what we intend to do.
	The reason, of course, that America is bringing troops into the south is because that is the area of greatest difficulty. To answer a point that the Leader of the Opposition made that I did not answer earlier, everybody will be working under the ISAF arrangements, including the Americans in the south.
	On Pakistan, I agree with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) that there is a need to tackle terrorism at all levels. We will continue to do that.
	Three years ago, we spent about 700 million on Afghanistan. That is rising to 3 billion next year. That enormous cost is being met by the British taxpayer to ensure security in Afghanistan, and of course in the border areas, to prevent terrorism in Britain and to strengthen the Afghan democracy. We want others to join us in sharing that burden in Afghanistan.
	On defence strategy as a whole, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, looking at the documentation over these last 10 years and more, that we have been consistently reviewing our strategy since the end of the cold war. Nobody could have expected some of the events, particularly those after September 2001, that have affected our country and many others. We must have a defence strategy that is not only consistent but able to respond to whatever events happen round the world.

Gordon Brown: I shall do so. I think it is very important for the country to be informed about the dangers that come from both the Pakistan border and the Afghan border. If we have been able to show something today, it is that the greater co-operation between the terrorist groups that operate across these borders must be dealt with by a more sophisticated and more effective strategy for the future. That is why we want to increase Afghan and Pakistan army and police work in those areas, where it has been limited in the past, and why we are also prepared to work with the Americans and others to increase the counter-terrorism capability, and its financing, of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the threat of terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom come mainly from those areas of the world that we have been talking about today, and people should know that the chain of terror that goes from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Britain can be broken only by the co-operation between all of Governments over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker: It seems that in this point of order the hon. Gentleman is comparing the previous Prime Minister with the present one. The best way of answering that is by saying that Prime Ministers are a bit like Speakers: no two work the same way. The Prime Minister is entitled, if he so wishes, to pass the legitimate question that the hon. Gentleman has tabled to one of his Ministers, and that is what he done, just as the previous Prime Minister decided that he would answer the question himself. They both have a different way of working, and it is up to the Prime Minister.

Prevention of Excessive Charges

Christopher Huhne: I beg to move,
	That this House regrets the Government's recent statement outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom; recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years; notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here; believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since; is concerned that the Government's new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority; further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.
	I am particularly pleased to be leading in this debate since my county of Hampshire has a long and intimate association with the Gurkhas and the Gurkha museum is based in Winchester, next door to my constituency. The museum is a remarkable celebration of this remarkable brigade, and I recommend it to any Member.
	The Gurkha regiments have provided extraordinary service to this country since 1815, when the first Gurkhas entered service with the East India Company, which had been impressed by their fighting prowess as opponents in the Nepal war. The company took the eminently pragmatic view that if we found it hard to beat them, we had better hire them. During the first world war, the Gurkhas fought in France, the Suez canal, Mesopotamiathat is, Iraqand Gallipoli. During the second world war, the regiments took part in the campaigns of north Africa, Italy, Greece, Malaya and Burma.
	After the war and Indian independence, the Gurkha regiments split between the Indian army and the British Army. Our British regiments saw service in the 12-year Malayan emergency, the Falklands, Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Gurkhas have a deserved reputation for effectiveness, bravery and loyalty. Given that remarkable history, it is perhaps surprising that until 2004 it was difficult if not impossible for foreign and Commonwealth members of the armed forces and Gurkhas to obtain settlement and British citizenship at the end of their service.
	The view before 2004 seemed to be that Gurkha rights were governed by the tripartite agreement of 1947 between Britain, India and Nepal, which stated that a
	Gurkha soldier must be recruited as a Nepali citizen, must serve as a Nepali citizen, and must be resettled as a Nepali citizen.
	We should pay tribute to the Gurkha welfare campaign and to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who I do not believe is in her place today, for raising the issue in 2003 both in parliamentary questions and in two Adjournment debates. We should also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) for pushing the issue at Prime Minister's questions.
	In 2004, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who was then the Home Secretary, set out changes to the immigration rules so that all those with at least four years' service in HM forces could apply for settlement in the UK after discharge. It is important that we recognise that crucial precedent. However, one key stipulation discriminated against Gurkhas compared with other foreign and Commonwealth troops, namely that they had to be discharged on or after 1 July 1997. There were some exceptions, but the fundamental rule was there.
	The rationale was simply that 1997 was the point at which the Gurkha regiment moved from its base in Hong Kong to the UK, following the handover of Hong Kong to China. That was never, frankly, the dividing line that some in Government seemed to think. One has only to look at the areas in which the Gurkhas served in the last 100 years to see that they were an integral part of the British armed forces. That decision led to some ridiculous and shameful anomalies. In a famous case, the Victoria cross holder, Honorary Lieutenant Tul Bahadur Pun, was initially refused indefinite leave to remain for having inadequate ties to the United Kingdom. Indeed, veterans of Malaya, the Falklands, the first Gulf war and long service veterans who were seriously ill were all refused entry. The standard reason given was that they had failed to demonstrate strong ties to the United Kingdom.
	A landmark in the recent history of the issue was the judicial review of the Limbu case by the honourable Mr. Justice Blake on 30 September 2008. Mr. Justice Blake found that the policy regarding Gurkhas was unlawful and should urgently be revisited. He noted the apparent concerns of the Ministry of Defence concerning the attitude of the Government of Nepal, but pointed out that they were not based on evidence. Instead, Mr. Justice Blake cited the honouring of an historic debt, and quoted the military covenant as follows:
	Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrificesincluding the ultimate sacrificein the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they and their families will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.
	Mr. Justice Blake added his own comment:
	Rewarding long and distinguished service by the grant of residence in the country for which the service was performed would, in my judgment, be a vindication and an enhancement of this covenant.
	I agree.

Andrew MacKinlay: I rejoice that in my constituency I have more than 400 Gurkha families. They enrich the borough educationally and in public life, and they also work, earn money and pay taxes. Gurkhas would be of enormous benefit to the United Kingdom, as they are to my constituency. The thing that really upsets me about the Government Front Benchers present is that there is a degree of inevitability about the matter, because as sure as night turns to day, they will win ultimately. I say to them: Why don't you embrace the proposal now? You wouldn't understand a just policy or a popular policy if it were painted on your eyelids.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions have to be brief, and there are many people waiting to contribute to the debate.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about immigration policy in its entirety. If he had come to some of the immigration debates that we have had, he would be aware that we Liberal Democrats have been putting forward proposals that would ensure that local authorities are better able to identify their needs, and better able to have the resources to meet them. I entirely accept that his is a legitimate concern, but I am afraid that it applies much more widely than merely to the narrow issue of the Gurkhas. For example, in areas of east London such as Newham, the NHS register is far out of line with the census results, which are used as a basis for the distribution of public finance, so I am entirely sympathetic to that point.
	There is a fundamental point that a number of my hon. Friends have already made, and have anticipated. We can play the numbers game, and if we do, the Government will lose the argument, because their figures, frankly, are fantasy. However, the numbers are not the point. The point is simple: Gurkhas have given an unconditional commitment to this country. They have put their lives on the line for us time and again. More than 45,000 Gurkhas have died in the conflicts of the two world wars, fighting for our freedoms and our way of life. They represent a tradition of service to Queen and country that is almost without equal.
	The Brigade of Gurkhas alone is the proud recipient of no fewer than 26 Victoria crossesthe highest medal, of course, for valour in combat that our nation can award. Many units in the British Army have an outstanding record of valour and bravery under fire, but I have not been able to establish that there is any other unit that can match that record.

Michael Howard: Is not it the case that it was made clear to Mr. Justice Blake that the Nepalese Government have no objection to the right being given to former Gurkha soldiers to settle in the UK?

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for protecting me from my hon. Friend from the mouth of the Thames.
	Not only can the Government say that they pay tribute to the Gurkhas, but we can prove by our record that we are doing so. Let me explain the background to this case. It has been said that the guidelines that we published on Friday have undermined support for the Gurkhas, but I do not accept that that is so. Gurkhas are recruited in Nepal, and remain Nepalese citizens throughout their service with the brigade, in line with the wishes of the Nepalese Government. Before 1997, the Brigade of Gurkhas was based in Hong Kong, and following the handover of Hong Kong to China, the regimental base was moved to the UK, which put the brigade on the same footing as Commonwealth soldiers.
	The service given by members of the brigade is chiefly recognised through the arrangements made to support them following their discharge. Gurkhas who served on or after 1 July 1997the date of the handover of Hong Kongare eligible to transfer to the armed forces pension scheme. Gurkhas who were discharged before that date, and who served for at least 15 years, receive a pension under the Gurkha pension scheme. In 2000, the value of those pensions was doubled. On top of that, the amount of the pension is regularly reviewed and increased in accordance with annual inflation in Nepalfor information, in 2009 it was 14.1 per cent. plus an additional 20 per cent. for those over 80. The pension received by ranks up to corporal is comparable to the salary of an engineer in Nepal, and it may be of interest to Members to know that the pension received by those of the rank of sergeant and above is equivalent or greater than that of a Member of Parliament.

William Cash: To go on about the judgment of the Court is to miss the point completely. The judicial review is itself determined by parameters which need to be reviewed. This is a special case. I speak as one who has met the Gurkhas in Staffordshire and who has campaigned on their behalf over a number of years. If the Minister intends to run the argument that this is about judicial review and the judge's interpretation, he is missing the wood for the trees.

Graham Stringer: The Government's record on the Gurkhas is better than that of any previous Government. My hon. Friend is right about that. He is a just and fair-minded Minister. However, I would feel happier if he could reassure the House that none of the Gurkhas who are awaiting appeals will be deported, and that he will say that he accepts the principle behind the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), which is that although the Government have done a lot, they can improve the situation further.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment; he brings us to the crux of the debate. For the benefit of those who wish to contribute to the debate, I will depart from my written speech. We have two worries about abolishing the pre-'97 cut-off date. First, we are concerned that it would set precedents for other groups, and, as one would expect, I have taken legal advice on that. We fear that the precedent would be set for people from Commonwealth countries who had served in the armed forces, and that that retrospective decision from pre-'97 would apply to other groups. We have to be clear that if a blanket decision was made on Gurkhas for pre-'97 there would be no unintended consequence for other groups who may have the right to challenge on the basis of common law and public law. With that there is the consequential impact on budgets, and the Prime Minister referred to the 1.4 billion. I do not recall using the 1.5 billion figure, but if I did I withdraw that. Our estimate is 1.4 billion, and I remind the House that that would come from the defence budget.
	Secondly, if right hon. and hon. Members are honest with themselvesI hope that we all arethe truth is that none of them know how many would apply. But as the former Chief of the Defence Staff said in  The Independent on Sunday, the Government have to live in the real world, not in the world of emotion. Therefore the staged approach that we have taken, as described by the Prime Ministerthis is the crux of my right hon. Friend's proposal

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend's point is extremely important, and I, as a Labour party member, think that we should give a lot of strength to it. The Government, through aid and the Department for International Development's budget, give 56 million to Nepal. We giveif give is the right wordor pay 54 million in pensions for Gurkhas, so those are the sums of money that are important to Nepal.
	I sense that the House has heard enough from me.

Damian Green: That is a faintly ridiculous point. Clearly, the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas is extremely important, but the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his point suggests that he is not interested in having the constructive debate that we need.
	The current situation is part of a long-running set of mistakes by the Government on the issue. They have been wrong on it ever since the High Court made its ruling last year. We have heard a lot about Mr. Justice Blake, but his judgment came down to this central point, when he said that the Gurkhas' service is worthy of
	an unquestionable moral debt of honour
	from the British people. The Opposition have been absolutely clear about that. The following day, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
	Yesterday the courts ruled that Gurkhas who want to come and live in Britain should be able to. They risked their lives for us and now we must not turn our backs on them. I say to the government... Do not appeal this ruling. Let's give those brave Gurkha soldiers who defended us the right to come and live in our country.
	Many Gurkhas outside this House today, and millions more of their supporters throughout the country, will be not only appalled by the Government's position but puzzled about how they arrived at it, so it is worth investigating why the Government find themselves in this position. The underlying reason why they have to behave in such an unfair and ungenerous way to the Gurkhas is that the Government's overall immigration policy has been out of control for many years. Why are they trying to stop Gurkhas coming here? It boils down to the fact that they have failed to stop so many much less deserving people from coming here and, what is worse, staying here.
	A long list of failures on immigration policy has driven the Minister to his present uncomfortable position. The Government failed to deport the killer of Stephen Lawrence; they failed to remove the suspected terrorist Abu Qatada; only one third of released foreign prisoners have been deported; and only 14 employers of illegal immigrants have been prosecuted since 2008.
	Then there is the wider point about immigration numbers. The Government used to say that there was no obvious upper limit on immigration, and in their headlong retreat from that disastrous policy, they are now in the ridiculous and immoral position of trying to keep out some of the best and most loyal servants of this country.

Damian Green: I have great admiration and liking for the hon. Gentleman, but that intervention was nonsensical and disgraceful in every individual part. I remind him that he is sitting on the Government Benches representing a party whose leader talked about British jobs for British people. If he wants to talk about unpleasant rhetoric, I suggest that he looks in his own house first.
	A Conservative Government would make a presumption that Gurkhas who left the service before 1997 would be allowed to settle in this country. That is the big divide in this debate. I think that everyone on the Conservative Benches is on one side of the debate, and most, although I hope not all, on the Government side of the Chamber are on the other side of it. Those of us who are on our side of the debate are also on the side of the Gurkhas. We are on their side because ours is the only fair solution to the problem that the Government face. How would we do it? We would fit their applications into the general framework of our proposed immigration policy. As the Minister knows, we would build on the points-based system with our proposal for a limit on the number of work permits issued every year, so that we have a properly controlled immigration system. We would create a new category within the points-based system for former service personnel who are not British citizens, and allow them the right to settle.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who is no longer in his place, objected to

Michael Howard: The 2nd Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles is based at Shorncliffe, in my constituency. In a bitter irony, soldiers from that battalion returned to Shorncliffe on Sunday 19 April, 10 days agojust five days before the Government made their announcementfrom a tour of duty in Afghanistan. It was a tour of duty in which, yet again, they demonstrated their heroism and valour, and during which they lost two of their comrades. On Tuesday 4 November, Rifleman Yubraj Rai received a gunshot wound from enemy fire. He received medical treatment at the scene but he died a short time later from his wounds. Only a few days later, on Saturday 15 November, Colour Sergeant Krishnabahadur Dura was taking part in a road move in the Musa Qala district of Helmand, when the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle in which he was travelling was struck by an explosive device.
	Those Gurkha soldiers made the supreme sacrifice for our country. When they died, the Prime Minister told the House that we should never forget the sacrifice that they had made, just as he did some three hours ago in respect of the death of the Welsh Guardsman who lost his life yesterday. However, those words must be accompanied by deeds.
	When the Gurkhas returned to Shorncliffe 10 days ago, they were warmly welcomed home by the rest of my constituents. The welcome home that they got from the Government was the decision that we are debating this afternoon. The Gurkhas are a most cherished part of the community that I represent in this place. To say that they are held in high regard would be a gross understatement.
	Two weeks ago, I attended and spoke at the launch of an appeal in Folkestone for the erection of a statue dedicated to the Gurkhas. Hundreds of people turned up: Gurkhas themselves, including their two holders of the Victoria cross, our highest award for valourTul Bahadur Pun and Lachhiman Gurungcivic dignitaries of the area and many local people, who wanted to show the affection and esteem in which the Gurkhas are held locally. We are proud to have them as members of our local community. We are not proud of the Government's decision, which we are debating this afternoon.

Robert Wilson: During my brief and much curtailed comments, I shall highlight several real-life cases in the knowledge that the Minister will have to hear what is the real plight faced by those very brave Gurkhas.
	I start by mentioning a true story of real heroism. Bhim Prasad Gurung, who lives in my constituency, was posted to Brunei with the 6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles in 1964. During a jungle operation, Mr. Gurung and a small group of his comrades were ambushed by Indonesian guerrillas. They did not have their weapons, as they had been locked away for the night in a store.
	During the fierce and one-sided firefight that ensued, seven Gurkha soldiers were killed and the same number severely wounded. Mr. Gurung and the survivors somehow regained their rifles and took the fight to the enemy, but unfortunately they ran out of ammunition. Their wireless radio was destroyed and they could not call for help or support. Alone in the jungle, out of ammunition and surrounded by their dead and wounded comrades, they never gave up hope.
	Mr. Gurung and his comrades roared out the famous Gurkha war cry, Ayo Gorkhali!, which means, The Gurkhas are coming! Through their shouts of defiance, they terrified the enemy so much that, despite Mr. Gurung and his brothers in arms being outnumbered and without ammunition, they retreated.
	That is just one example of heroism displayed by those brave Gurkha soldiers. It is truly a disgrace, then, when they are forced to come to this country and live in destitution after their retirement from the Army.
	Many of the brave Gurkhas who have settled in Reading have found themselves living in abject poverty. Former Gurkha Ash Bahadur Gurung served in the 6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles for 16 years. He lives with his wife and their 12-year-old daughter in a small, rented house paid for out of the basic salary of his son, who is in the British Army. He struggles to make his Gurkha pension of 25.67 last the week. He says that the main problem he faces is getting his daughtershe goes to Reading girls' schoolto school, which costs 3 a day on the bus. That is a lot of money out of a 25 pension. Mr. Gurung's wife is not entitled to use the NHS, so she had to buy a pair of crutches and a wheelchair from the Red Cross after one of her legs was amputated after having cancer.
	To treat anyone in such a way is dreadful, but to do it to the brave Gurkhas is a national disgrace. The Home Office criteria that were put out recently are immoral. I could not have put it better than Joanna Lumley, who said that she is ashamed of this Government. Today, the whole nation is ashamed of them.

Mark Lancaster: Given the inconsistent approach that the Government of Nepal have taken to the recruitment of Gurkhasit was an election promise by the Maoists not to allow Britain to recruit Gurkhasand following his discussions in Nepal last week, can the Minister update the House on the current position in light of the ruling?

Kevan Jones: I will come to that point in a moment.
	There are 26,000 Gurkha pensioners in Nepal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) asked how we know how many there are; we know because we are paying them pensions. Some 54 million is therefore going into the Nepalese economy. The DFID budget is only 56 million. Some have suggested that taking that money out of the Nepalese economy will have no effect, but that is definitely not the case. It is important to recognise that the service pensioners whom I met last week would not claim that they did not have a good standard of living.
	I am sad that lawyers representing the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organisation, which is involved in the campaign, failed to turn up for the meeting that I had arranged with them. They later issued a press release condemning me for not meeting them. The House should be careful when it comes to some of the tactics being used in this debate.
	I asked some of the service pensioners whether they would want to come here, and most said, No, but our families and children would. For those service pensioners, this Government have a proud record. The increase in their pensions over the past 10 years has been some 500 per cent., and we cannot just ignore the financial contribution that that makes to the economy of Nepal.
	The second group of pensioners are the welfare pensioners, who did not accrue the service pensionlike many who serve in the British Armybecause they did not serve for long enough. In this country, they get no pension at all, but in Nepal they are paid the equivalent of 30 a month through the Gurkha Welfare Trust, which the MOD supports through a grant of more than 1 million a year and through administrative support. Then there is the medical care. According to some of the commentators, the Gurkhas want to come here because they lack medical care in Nepal, but that is not the case. Service pensioners and welfare pensioners get free primary health care, and their secondary health care is supported by the trust. Service pensioners, who already get a good income, also get a percentage of the cost of their care paid.
	On the subject of the Gurkha Welfare Trust, may I put on the record our thanks to those people? They are doing a first-rate job and since my visit I have given a commitment that I will review MOD support and see what else we can do to help. Those people are truly inspirational, not just because of their help for Gurkhas but because of their charity work in villages and helping the wider community in Nepal.
	May I address some of the points that were made in the debate. Quite clearly, the main Opposition party has a problem with this issue. Over the past few days, I have been trying to work out what its policies would be. For example, on Monday  The Sun declared that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is now supporting the Gurkha campaign. Anyone can defy me if, after reading the article, they can say what conclusion he comes to. Today, we have heard a very clear policy. Under the regulations, there would be new criteria that allowed anyone who had served in Her Majesty's armed forces to settle in the UK. That would include personnel from India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Burma, Singapore, Kenya and Rhodesia, to name but a few.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made a very good point about the Tory track record. When the Tories had the opportunity to reward servicemen and women, they did not. In the draw-down from Hong Kong, only one in seven of the Crown officers and able personnel was allowed in. We are seeing crocodile tears, I think. The Conservatives' policy would have an immense cost and would drive a coach and horses through the immigration policy of this country. I am glad that they have clarified that policy.
	Let me clear up another point about the 20 years. The idea that only officers who served would qualify is not true. They all started as privates and 55 per cent. of the people who will qualify will not be officers.
	The other issue that we need to clarify, which was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), concerns the position of the Government of Nepal and the court case. The Nepalese official who gave evidence to the court case did so in a private capacity. There was nobody there from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Nepalese Government have not given a view about whether they support Gurkha welfare or not.

Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	As I was saying, although we hope to hear from the Foreign Secretary tomorrow on the subject of Sri Lanka, I am sure the whole House will wish him well as he visits Sri Lanka today, with the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Kouchner, even if his Swedish counterpart, Mr. Bildt, has been outrageously prevented from accompanying them. This trip by Foreign Ministers to Sri Lanka is an important European initiative, and we hope that it will combine with the efforts of others, especially those of the Americans and the Indians, to make both sides in that bloody conflict reflect hard and deep before the current nightmare turns into a total catastrophe.
	I hope our motion may even add just a little to the strength of the message that the Foreign Ministers can convey, especially to the Sri Lankan Government. That is why we tried to word our motion in a way that could garner support from across the House, so it is slightly unfortunate that the Government could not refrain from tabling their own amendment. I hope that Ministers might reflect before 7 pm that if they decided not to press their amendment, it might be possible to unite all parties and send a unanimous message from the House of Commons.

Gillian Merron: I hear my right hon. Friend. I thank him and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for their generous and gracious support of the Foreign Secretary, who is indeed in Sri Lanka on our behalf and promoting our overriding priority, which is the prevention of further civilian death and suffering.
	As the House has heard, the Foreign Secretary is in Sri Lanka with French Foreign Minister Kouchner. I spoke with the Foreign Secretary by phone this morning to receive an update. I can tell the House that in meetings with the President and others, the Foreign Secretary pushed hard for full UN and non-governmental organisation access to civilians in the camps and elsewhere. He visited some of the camps near Vavuniya in the north. While there, he told me of the disturbing accounts that he heard of families being forcibly separated as they tried to flee the fighting.
	The Foreign Secretary also confirmed to me just how clear it is that the LTTE is preventing civilians from leaving the conflict zones. The use of civilians as human shields is abhorrent and must end.
	Visits to Sri Lanka by the British and French Foreign Ministers, along with the visit earlier this week by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), send a powerful message to the Sri Lankan Government that the plight of civilians is an issue of international concern. The visit by the cross-party group of MPs next week will do likewise.
	Civilians have always been our No. 1 priority. I again thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for his supportive remarks about the Prime Minister, who was the first Government leader to call for a ceasefire back in January.
	We welcomed the two-day ceasefire that took place earlier this month, but it did not achieve the objective. It was not enough time, and the LTTE prevented all but 300 civilians leaving the conflict zone. Since then, the Prime Minister has spoken to the Sri Lankan President twice to make clear our profound concerns about the continuing situation. He called for an end to the fighting and for civilians to be allowed out to find the safety they deserve. The Sri Lankan President issued a statement a few days later, saying that the Government would
	end the use of heavy calibre guns, combat aircraft and aerial weapons which could cause civilian casualties.
	But that is also not enough. Only a full ceasefire will allow all civilians to leave the conflict zone and reach safety.

Gillian Merron: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the reason is that this is about what is possible in terms of putting the infrastructure in place and demining. This will not be the end of the story, but it is about being realistic about meeting and assisting to meet things in that way.

Gillian Merron: As I have just said, and am happy to reiterate, the answer can be the answer only if it brings together all communities. There is no other way forward.
	The UK is working with the international community to build a co-ordinated international response, which is, of course, the most powerful way forward. The UK has taken a leading role in bringing Sri Lanka on to the international community's agenda. We have closely co-ordinated with others, particularly the US, France and India, and the Foreign Secretary has issued joint statements with the French and Americans. We have played an active role in securing renewed calls by the EU Foreign Ministers and the G8 to ensure that civilians are protected.
	With regard to the UN, we welcome the personal focus that the UN Secretary-General has given to Sri Lanka, and his statements on the plight of civilians. We have also supported the separate visits to Sri Lanka by the UN representatives for humanitarian affairs and for internally displaced persons, as well as by the Secretary-General's chef de cabinet. It is important that they were able to see the appalling situation for themselves.
	Despite opposition, we have successfully worked for these representatives to give informal briefings to the Security Council. The UN has a vital role to play in keeping the spotlight of international concern and action focused on Sri Lanka. On the issue of a UN Security Council resolution, we believe that such a resolution would be an effective demonstration of the views of the international community. However, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, not all permanent members of the Security Council believe that it is appropriate for the Council to discuss this issue. Without the agreement of all permanent members, we cannot get a resolution. My real concern is that if we went forward with a resolution and it was vetoed, we would have an even worse situation, because the Sri Lankan Government would simply say, The UN has agreed with us that no action should be taken. That would not be a good outcome for the people of Sri Lanka.
	The matter of war crimes is very important. This conflict has been taking place in the shadows due to the limited international presence. Actions must be fully investigated, and if war crimes have been committed they should be identified. But, as in all conflicts, it is difficult for investigations to be made while the conflict is ongoing. Under international law, the primary burden for investigation rests on the authority against whose forces allegations of war crimes are made.

Keith Simpson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on introducing this short debate. I also want to congratulate all members of the Government on the efforts that they have made over the past few months in a very difficult situation. All Members of the House cannot but be moved by the despair of the British Tamil community, highlighted by the demonstration outside Parliament, over what is happening to their friends and relatives.
	This is the third time that this subject has been debated in the past two or three months. We had a debate on 5 February and another on 24 March, and powerful speeches were made by hon. Members from all parties. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to speak for half an hour, reiterating all the points that have been made. I merely want to try to emphasise two or three points, tying togetheras I see itthe problems of achieving an immediate ceasefire and a somewhat longer-term solution. This situation has been bedevilled on both sides by extremists who have used terror and counter-terror, with truces declared and broken, to further their particular political interests. That has happened recently with both the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE.
	Enormous efforts have been made by individual Governments and by the international community to attempt to force both sides to come to a ceasefire. At different stages, neither side has found it in their interests to do so. That is not to say that the efforts that have been made have been nugatory and should not have been attempted. An important, powerful point concerns the way in which this House, on the whole, has spoken with one voice. That has had an impactalthough not a particularly great oneon the Sri Lankan Government. Apart from anything else, I think that they thought that they had had a more sophisticated public relations campaign over the past few months.
	The immediate problem is not only to achieve a ceasefire but to bring in humanitarian aid to those people who are now concentrated in camps to which there is limited access. There are tens of thousands of them and I think that the fear of many outside observers is that the Sri Lankan Government intend to weed out people from those camps whom they regard as terrorists. It is very important that we not only have international observers there but members of the media, including members of the media in Sri Lanka.
	Of course, a ceasefire is also required to prevent the final overrun of the last bit of territory held by the LTTE where tens of thousands of innocent civilians are suffering from both sides. The Sri Lankan Government are still using aerial weapons, artillery and air strikes. We know that from the UN representative. Equally, as the former Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), pointed out, the LTTE armed wing is made up of a particularly vicious and nasty bunch of people. They have forcibly put young people into their fighting groups and used civilians as screens. We should not absolve ourselves from that.
	I am not trying to be negative, but I do not genuinely believe that the Sri Lankan Government will agree to a ceasefire. I think that they believe that they are so close to achieving a military victory that they will do anything to stop one. I do not think that there is anything that the international community or the British Government can do to force them not to achieve that military victory, as the Sri Lankan Government see it. That is not to say that I do not think that we should shout from the rooftops about what they are doing. The problem that they face, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, is that that military victory will be pyrrhic. They will achieve a military victory but they will immediately face the problem of dealing with the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. They will probably then come under enormous pressure and will feel that they have to give in to international observers and the United Nations. We should be thinking now about what pressure we can bring at that point and what we want to demand of the Sri Lankan Government.
	As other hon. Members have said, in every conflict that we can think of, this kind of military victory will result in the surviving members of the LTTE carrying out terrorist acts, not only in Sri Lanka but worldwide, on a scale the likes of which the Sri Lankan Government have not yet seen. So what I urge colleagues to think about is that we continue to maintain the pressure on the Sri Lankan Government, through the sort of action that the Foreign Secretary has been carrying out. We must also recognise that the Sri Lankan Government are incredibly sensitive and touchy about what they believe is white, colonial interference in their internal affairs. For example, the appointment of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) as a special envoy was effectively negated by them. In addition, they have refused permission for the Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt, to enter Sri Lanka, for reasons that seem very much based on interferencein other words, the Sri Lankan Government believe that they are defending their right.
	We all believe that that is stupid and nugatory, but I suspect that we will have a very limited window of opportunity to bring real pressure to bear on the Sri Lankan Government after they have achieved their so-called military victory. That is becausethis is my final pointthe pressure will be off them then, with the international media moving on to some other horror story elsewhere in the world. The British Tamil community, quite rightly, will expect more of us, but it is at that point that the British Government will really have to engage with the Sri Lankan Government.
	Ironically, I think that the Sri Lankan Government will be at their weakest then. In wishing to achieve a military victory they have ignored all the negative aspects, such as the fact that they are in serious financial difficulties, and that may be what allows us to exert some pressure.

Joan Ryan: It is relevant to remind ourselves that we are talking about up to 6,500 people killed since January. The fact that even official accounts now put the number above 5,000 gives us a little perspective.
	I worry when I hear talk about more violence. There may well be, but it is very important that we stand here and say that there must not be. I also worry that, although none of us approves of what is happening, we almost seem to be saying, We can't stop the Sri Lankan Government. This is internal to that country, so they reject everything that we say, the envoys that we send, and even the Swedish Foreign Minister. That's not fine, but there's nothing we can do about it.
	I do not accept that there is nothing we can do about what is happening in Sri Lanka. I am very relieved that our Foreign Secretary is in Sri Lanka, and I pay tribute to him for making the trip at this crucial point in time. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that this is an important point in time. If Sri Lanka is on the verge of a bloodbath, there could not be a more important time for our Foreign Secretary to be there, making it absolutely clear that what is happening is not acceptable.
	Sri Lanka must move to a permanent ceasefire. We attach no preconditions to the negotiations that must follow; it is not for us to do so. However, it is right that we and the international community call for an immediate, permanent ceasefire, and for negotiations to startnegotiations involving all parts of the community in Sri Lanka, as has been said. I am pleased that our Prime Minister was the first international Government leader to call for a ceasefire. That is important leadership, and many others need to follow suit. I have no doubt that that was critical to ensuring that India made clear its view that a ceasefire was required. Our Government have made huge moves that have had a huge impact, but we are still not where we need to be.
	A lot has been said about the UN, and I, too, have made it clear that there should be a UN Security Council resolution. Through all the debates, I think that we have all come to understand that China and Russia are obstructing international efforts to reach agreement. We are well past the point at which it could be said to be unhelpful to identify where the problem comes from, in terms of ensuring that the international community can act. To go back to my first point, if we are not to say, Well, there's nothing that we can do; Governments get to do these things in their own country, and are instead to say, This is a humanitarian and human rights catastrophe, and it is completely and utterly wrong, we have to act through the UN. Therefore, it is right that we should identify where the problem is.
	China and Russia are obstructing international efforts to reach agreement, but where the UN Security Council fails to act to maintain international peace and security, a provision exists to overcome disagreement among its five permanent members, namely the Uniting for Peace resolution. It enables an emergency special session of the General Assembly to be called for by a procedural resolution of the Security Council, which, unlike substantive resolutions, cannot be vetoed by any of the five permanent members. I am not an expert on the UN, and I have had to do a bit of research to discover those technicalities and means of progressing things there, but the Uniting for Peace resolution seems to offer a way forward, if it is not possible to get the kind of resolution for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have been calling.

Susan Kramer: I want to acknowledge in particular the importance of the Tamil community in making sure that the international community finally gives a high priority to the suffering of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.
	Last week, I was privileged to go with three members of the Tamil community to Strasbourg to meet the EU External Relations Commissioner, Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner. I was joined by Members of the European Parliament, and we were all acting in a cross-party capacity, rather than representing one particular party. It was evident from that conversation that, at that time, the issue was not a priority on the agenda of the meeting of Foreign Ministers that was to take place on Monday. We have now progressed so far that our Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister are in Sri Lanka tackling the problem directly. I congratulate the British, French and Czech Governments on making sure that the subject moved so rapidly up the agenda and has gained the priority that it deserved. I also congratulate those young Tamils, whose eloquence made a significant difference on that day. The Tamil community fired up the political world not only here, but in other European capitals. That has been extraordinary, and we should recognise the role that they played.
	I turn briefly to the welfare camps; I am trying not to use the full amount of time that I have been allotted. I talked yesterday with some of the humanitarian agencies, which obviously have long-standing contacts in Sri Lanka. Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have quoted the numbers said to be going to the welfare camps. The report back is that the situation is horrendous. The Sri Lankan Government have long been in denial that many civilians were involved. Consequently, there is a shortage of absolutely everything and the system is completely overstretched, creating a present and imminent humanitarian crisis.
	The second set of issues to which the humanitarian agencies tried to draw my attention is that rumours are rife that people going to the camps are disappearing young men are disappearing, presumably thought to be possible members of the LTTE who have taken off their uniform; and young women are disappearing, and the rumour is that they are providing, shall I say, comfort services. Whether that is true or not, the issue will enflame the Tamil people in both Sri Lanka and the diaspora, and it underscores the importance of stressing to the British Government and others that the UN and the ICRC must become responsible for supervising all stages of the screening process when people enter and leave the camps. That must be documented and there must be the appropriate database. If not, rumour will be so out of control that it will be very difficult to secure any benefits when there is some degree of ceasefire.

Susan Kramer: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about transparency. It must be made clear to the Sri Lankan Government that there is no loss of face in bringing in the international community. That is not a presumption of guilt. It is part of the structure for creating peace out of conflict.
	With reference to the camps, it is crucial that people are resettled as quickly as possible. One number we have not heard today is that of the more than 300,000 displaced people who are in camps as a result of the conflict prior to 2002people who have not been able to return home because of the high-security camps established in the east of the country. That cannot be repeated in the valley, or we will find ourselves with a long-term and constantly festering problem in Sri Lanka. That will take international community pressure to achieveoffers of international help for de-mining are a good exampleas well as the provision of resources. Humanitarian organisations tell me that the scale of the problem is bigger than that of the tsunami in Sri Lankathe number of families involved and the need for shelter, for livelihood support, for infrastructure reconstruction and for dealing with trauma post-crisis.

Des Browne: If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I do not intend to use the whole of my 10 minutes and will therefore not take any interventions.
	All hon. Members know from our experience of debates, particularly on Northern Ireland, exactly what we need to do to create an inclusive peace process that has no preconditions attached to it, respects the rights and aspirations of all parties in a diverse community, and leads to a lasting peace. I had no illusions about my ability to resolve decades of conflict, but I wanted to make a small contribution in that context on the island of Sri Lanka. I have felt frustrated by my inability to do that thus far, but I have never given up on the opportunity to do so at some stage, if I stuck at it.
	Now there is a greater challengea humanitarian crisis and a situation that can be resolved only by a ceasefire and agreement to the conditions that I understand the Sri Lankan Government have agreed with John Holmes, Walter Kaelin and all those who have intervened with them and have been accepted on the island to discuss the matters that Members have raised about international supervision, conduct, and care of the people who come out of the conflict zone.
	If hon. Members present, and those who hear this speech otherwise, will forgive me, I do not intend to rehearse all the steps that need to be taken, because I agree with what everybody has said. I want to say that the Sri Lankan Government have invited me to go to Sri Lanka with an all-party group of Back-Bench Members of Parliament. Those who have agreed to come with me are distinguished, serious and well-qualified Members of this House; I will not identify them because I have not agreed with them that I can do so. In any event, the applications for visas are with the Sri Lankan Government as I speak, and I want to ensure that they are processed and that we get to go.
	I close by saying that I intend to go with that group to Sri Lanka to deliver on behalf of the House the message that it agrees today. I agreed to be the Prime Minister's special envoy to work with and for the Government but not be of the Government, but I am a Member of this House. For that reason, I hope that the parties' Front-Bench teams can get together and discuss what we are debating today, and give us a message that we can take to Sri Lanka that does not have behind it the division implied by a vote in this House. It will be much better if we speak with one voice, which we do. In five or 10-minute speeches one Member might give slightly different emphasis from another, and connections with people in our constituencies or elsewhere might rightly cause us to deliver certain messages, but we all agree about this.
	We should speak with one voice and empower the small group of people from all parties who have bravely and readily agreed to come with me next week to deliver a very strong message. In that way, perhaps we can be one institution that says to the Sri Lankan Government and the people in the conflict, This killing must stop, and there are very simple steps that can be taken to allow all of you to emerge from this with dignity and live in peace.

Simon Hughes: I thank the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) for his contribution, for the efforts that he has already made, for working with colleagues in all parts of Parliament and for facilitating some of the Tamil community going to speak directly to people of influence in the European Union, the American State Department and Administration and, almost certainly within two days, the United Nations. They are very grateful, and his efforts are much appreciated.
	Unlike some colleagues, although not others, I do not come to this matter because of a great constituency obligation, as I have almost no Tamil constituents. I come to it because when I was elected 25 years ago, I was alert to the fact that there was a fundamental constitutional problem in Sri Lanka that, unless it was resolved politically, could lead to the sort of crisis that we are in. When it became independent, the majority community built in its Sinhala Buddhist majority constitutionally. It did not accept that Sri Lanka should be a pluralist country of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Burghers, Tamils and Sinhala. It did not understand that India is the great country that it is because it had understood that point just over the water, and because it is a secular state where people can rise to the highest office irrespective of their religion and where there is devolution to its various states. I saw that there was a potential problem, and those of us who have been in the House together for those 25 years know that history has borne that out.
	We know that there have been further disasters since then, such as the tsunami. We know that the Sri Lankan Government have gradually committed more of their budget, which they need for schools, education and other things, to defence and internal securityI believe that it is currently something like 20 per cent. It became obvious over the past few years that the situation would become worse when, as colleagues have said, Louise Arbour of the United Nations and the international press were asked to leave. It became obvious when almost all the international relief agencies were asked to leave, with only the International Committee of the Red Cross and Caritas having any significant presence in the north, and when the editor of the  Sunday Leader was assassinated and nobody was brought to book. Nobody has been brought to book for a succession of assassinations. The result was becoming more obvious.
	As friends in all parts of the House have said, there is now a crisis in Sri Lankaa catastrophe before our eyes in a fantastically talented, beautiful, cultured place. However, it is a crisis also for the international political system. The pleas of the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for whom I have great respect, those of friends in the Conservative party, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and all my colleagues and those of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun in New York reflect the fact that the systems have not moved in time to deliver the outcome. That is not good enough. The world cannot go on letting any Government, let alone the Government of a so-called democracy and a country that is part of the Commonwealth, behave in such a way, so alienating and suppressing their minority that they build up hostility potentially for generations.
	Like others, I have spent heart-aching moments across the road in the past three and a half weeks since 6 April. I have been over the road every day bar two, and I was in the United States with three young British Tamils on one of those. I have in my hand a letter written by the students who came on to the streets as a result of what was happening in Sri Lanka. They were not organised; they were not a group that formed part of the existing structure of the Tamil community. The young people came on to the streets because they could not stand it any more. They made five simple requests. I shall repeat them because they are so simple, yet so fundamental.
	The letter is dated 13 April. It states:
	Dear HM's Government and its citizens,
	As students, we request that you fulfil our and
	they name the young man who remains on hunger strike in Parliament square today
	Subramanian Parameswaran's requests, which are:
	1. An immediate and permanent ceasefire by government troops, the LTTE and any others engaged in military action in Sri Lanka.
	2. Immediate and continuing access to all parts of Sri Lanka by representatives of the United Nations or any organisation chosen by them before and after the ceasefire.
	3. Immediate access to all parts of Sri Lanka by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international humanitarian aid agencies.
	4. Immediate access to all parts of Sri Lanka by independent representatives of the international press.
	5. An opportunity for all the Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka freely to express their opinion about their future in a referendum which would take place with independent international observers.
	Those are not the pleas of irrational and unreasonable people. When I spoke to the young people and their friends, they added to their absolute prioritythe ceasefireimmediate access so that the human rights of all are protected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) and others said.
	I have spoken to humanitarian workers who have been asked to leave the north. They said that the whole of the north is effectively a detention camp. I have an e-mail, written on 24 April, from one of the bishops of the Church in the north. It simply states:
	The suffering and hardship that the... 30,000 IDPs are undergoing after arriving in Vavuniya are beyond human expression.
	I want to request specific things that add to but do not dissent from the unanimous and strong views that have been expressed here. It is important to urge the UN to continue to do morelet me reinforce the voices that have called for that. The UN must not only hear reports, but take a view. It has a right to intervene to protect minorities around the world, and it must do that.
	The EU has important levers. It has been asked whether it can help with financial support through the GSPgeneralised system of preferencesplus, which is a method of helping with textile concessions to the garment industry. We must not let the EU help Sri Lanka if Sri Lanka does not participate properly in the international community.

Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to allow others time to speak.
	We are grateful to the secretary-general of the Commonwealth for seeing us. The Commonwealth must convene its ministerial action group and make it clear that Sri Lanka must uphold human rights. The Commonwealth says that its members must do that, and it must effect that. It is as nothing if it does not take a stand at such moments of crisis.
	As the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, India and the United StatesI was privileged to be in the State Department and with White House officials last weekare probably the two countries that are most able to exercise influence. We pray that they take every opportunity to use their influence now, not only to get the ceasefire, but the protection, the human rights observation and the international relief that is needed.
	It would be completely unacceptable if the International Monetary Fund loan was granted in the present circumstances. I am not worried about the technicalities of the rules, but to give 1.9 billion to Sri Lanka in these circumstances would be completely unacceptable, and other non-emergency funding must not go there either.
	I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton said. The Americans are clear, as we must be, that anybody who has committed war crimes should expect to be brought to trial and treated in a way that gives justice to all. The evidence is thereI have seen itthat heavy armaments have been shelling in the civilian zone and it will prove that the Sri Lankan Government, as well as others, are guilty of those sorts of crimes.
	There will need to be peace and a political process in the future, and it will need to recognise the Tamil people's claim to self-government. In the end, nothing else will be acceptable. However, just as people in this country, in Canada and in the Lebanon have understood these issues, so must Sri Lanka understand them too.
	Let me end on this point. Unless we respond effectively now, the international community of young people and the Tamils around the world, who include some of the brightest and best in this country, will not just have found us wanting in their hour of need; they will have found the international community failing. Unless we show that politics can work, we will be failing them and failing politics.

John Battle: I welcome this debate and would like to say a word of thanks to the Liberal Democrats for choosing this topic this afternoon. After 26 years and perhaps more than 70,000 dead, with 400 a week, we all have some responsibility both for not raising the profile of the issue much earlier and more often and for not pressing for action.
	I speak not as a person who has many Tamil families in their constituency; rather, I come to this debate from the viewpoint of international development, human rights and campaigning for basic justice and peace. We have failed to raise the issue's international profile. As well as passing resolutions at the UN, we ought to be pressing the UN on behalf of the international community to get in there.
	I want to make two points about taking action. One is to do with humanitarian aid and assistance, which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) mentioned, and the other is about the media. Not that long ago in this Chamber we discussed the crisis in Burma. What did we all do, in all parts of the House? We pressed for international action to get humanitarian aid to Burma, despite the Burmese authorities saying no, and it happenedit happened to a limited extent, but it did happen. The press are not there, but the aid got through.
	We have to take the crisis seriously as a humanitarian crisis. We have seen reports since January 2008, when the ceasefire collapsed. We have seen violence and conflict and the death and immiseration of thousands, and still too many people are affected. The rumour is that 100,000 people are still trapped in the conflict zone, cluttered in makeshift shelters and completely exposed to the crossfire right now. That is a humanitarian crisis. We should not wait for the politics to be sorted out. Instead, we need the UN to get in there and, in a sense, interfere and stop what is happening by ensuring that civilians are protected, because that is what we and the UN should be about.
	The Sri Lankan army moved on the northern towns that were controlled by the Tamil Tigers, but the rumours are that some 50,000 civilians are still trapped there. When the Sri Lankan army moved into Mullaitivu, 250,000 civilians were driven out into the neighbouring countryside. Hundreds were killed, but it is reported that those people are still desperate, without any resources whatever. That is precisely the sort of situation that the humanitarian agencies of the UN ought to deal with, by getting in there, interfering and mixing it to ensure that those people are properly protected.
	More worryingly, the International Committee of the Red Cross has reported that 250,000 civilians have received no humanitarian aid at all since 29 January. Still no safe corridors have been properly negotiated for those civilians to be evacuated. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, the Sri Lankan Government claim that they are setting up so-called welfare villages for internally displaced persons, but they are not monitored and there are fears that they will be more like Government detention centres than humanitarian aid camps. Practical support and help is therefore needed in those areas. It is reported that there are 180,000 Tamils in or waiting to enter the camps for internally displaced persons, many of whom are women and children and many of whom are maimed and damaged. They are victims of shelling and warfare and they need humanitarian assistance in the form of practical medical help and support, and food and water, now.
	Yesterday, it was reported that a British surgeon working for Mdecins sans Frontires said that 320 people had turned up at a hospital with 40 places. The health systems are being overwhelmed by the damage caused by this conflict. As a result, the victims of land mines, shells and shrapnel are turning up at hospitals and not getting any assistance whatever.

John Battle: I completely agree; this is not an either/or. Of course, if any action is to be taken by the UN, resolutions need to be passed. It is time for the international community to hold hands and to say that this is a humanitarian crisis. We might not be able to sort the politics out tomorrow, but we need to act now because of the humanitarian issues. That means that, in practice, there needs to be unrestricted access for the delivery of humanitarian aid. Such aid was delivered in Burma, and in East Timor during the conflict some years ago, as a result of the UN's arranging for ships to be parked off the coast or near the ports. I made suggestions about that in the House at the time. That could happen in Sri Lanka now.
	I welcome the Government's actions, and the supplying of some 5,000 tents and of provisions directly to internally displaced persons through the UNHCR, as well as the extra 2.5 million that is going in through the international agencies, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) says, we must press for others in the international community to join in that activity, so that real international pressure can be brought to bear on humanitarian grounds. The Government of Sri Lanka must be put under intense international pressure to allow the UN to help with the evacuation and support of civilians now. That includes the setting up and running of the necessary provisions for internally displaced persons by the international community. That happens in every other conflict in the world, and it should be possible for it to happen now without insulting anyone's political kudos.
	My second point is about the media. The Liberal Democrat motion draws attention to the role of the media, and I slightly regret that the amendment does not do so. Perhaps that was just an oversight. The motion states that
	access is vital for humanitarian assistance, human rights monitors and members of the international media throughout the conflict zone.
	I am usually incredibly critical of the way the media carry on, but in conflicts the courage of the international media can sometimes help to defuse the conflict and bring about a ceasefire faster because of what they report. I also think that the media should have access to all internally displaced persons and to the camps that have been set up to look after them.
	The Government's amendment to the motion accepts the need to
	persuade the government of Sri Lanka to allow international oversight of all internally displaced persons.
	It also rightly refers to the need for
	a transparent registration process and improved conditions within the camps with better access to food, water and medical facilities
	and urges
	the government of Sri Lanka to allow freedom of movement in and out of the camps
	which we are not seeing in the so-called villages at the moment
	so that families separated by the conflict can be reunited.
	I would hope that the Foreign Secretary, who is visiting Sri Lanka, will bring pressure to bear in relation not only to humanitarian aid but to media access throughout the system. Those two provisions should go together. I would also say to the media that, if and when they get in, they should not just go there for a day and report the crisis of the day. They should remain there to follow the process through, and to show that those who have become sad victims of this crisis through no fault of their own are being properly protected and looked after.
	Of course we all need to work together and to push for a process of political reconciliation and lasting peace and justice, but I draw attentionthe hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to thisto the International Crisis Group. It suggested that the international reconstruction and development assistance, which could include the International Monetary Fund loan that Sri Lanka has applied for, should have conditions attached and that those conditions for development aid IMF loans should be related to the Colombo Government's providing a basic level of human security, ending the impunity in relation to human rights violations and introducing an empowering process of devolution that includes provincial councils as part of a genuine democratic political transformation.
	Yes, Sri Lanka is 75 per cent. Sinhalese, 18 per cent. Tamil and 7 per cent. Muslim, but if there is to be some settlement, all those parties must be included or there will be no future and no way forward. That is an agenda that international development assistance can help with. We must ensure that there is humanitarian assistance nowtents, yes, but also food, water aid and medical aidand we must work to get the media in there and stay in there.
	When we work together and look at the reconstruction work afterwards, perhaps that development of devolution, which should include the minorities, will consider some new politics that might not be unique to Sri Lanka and might open up a political agenda that allows a proper political conversation with Sri Lanka to take place.

Andrew Love: I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on tabling the motion. This is a timely and important debate. I also congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part in it. We have sung from the same hymn sheet, and it is important that we send the message that this Parliament is as one over what confronts us in Sri Lanka at the moment. An acute humanitarian disaster is unfolding.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I have been involved in Sri Lankan issues for some time. I have visited the island on several occasions. Since 1983, the country has experienced bitter divisions and conflicts, but I cannot remember a situation as grave as the one we face today. Many people have been able to escape from the conflict area, but while there is no outside verification, no human rights organisations, no humanitarian relief and no one to tell us what is going on, we can only assume the worst. Of course, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that shelling continues and the LTTE continues to hold people, some voluntarily and some against their will. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 70,000 innocent civilians are still trapped in the area. As the Parliament of a country on friendly terms with Sri Lanka, we must speak out as boldly as we can about the issue.
	I congratulate the House on being united on the issue. I also wish to pick up the point made on how we would not send the right signal to Sri Lanka should we be forced into a Division at the end of the debate. It is critical that, having spoken with one voice, we act with one voice. So we must not divide tonight on motions that are very similar in many ways. I hope that that plea will be heeded. Speaking out is only part of the issue. We must also be seen to be doing things.
	Several things have been raised on which I wish to comment. First, I understand that there are reasons why the Commonwealth would suspend one of its members. That has been done in the past, but there have been voices suggesting that such action would not be appropriate at this point. However, in the past when there have been difficulties between the Commonwealth as an organisation and an individual member, a group of other Commonwealth countries with close connections to the offending party have sent a delegation to make it clear how the Commonwealth feels about the issue. I believe that that could be done on behalf of the Commonwealth, particularly if that group of countries were led by India, which has enormous influence in Sri Lanka.

Keith Vaz: I was present at meeting with the Commonwealth secretary-general arranged by the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). It seems that Sri Lanka has put in a bid to host the Commonwealth summit in 2011. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be totally inappropriate for Sri Lanka to be asked to host that after all that it has done to its own people?

Andrew Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question and agree wholeheartedly. We have to send a very clear signal from all sorts of directions, one of which is the Commonwealth. While this conflict continues and while the Commonwealth continues to stand out against the actions of the Sri Lankan Government there can be no place for honouring them with the ability to hold that conference.
	I think that there is a role for the Commonwealth. At this stage, that role might not involve suspending Sri Lanka from membership, but action must be taken and the Commonwealth definitely has a role to play.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned the option of action through the European Union. Of course, the Sri Lankan Government are incredible sensitive about the GSP plus process. I know that because on my last visit, and in subsequent discussions with the high commissioner and others, I learned that the rag trade, if I can call it that, is extremely important to Sri Lanka. Access to the European Union through the GSP process is critical to the future of the economy of Sri Lanka. GSP does not relate only to trade; it relates to human rights standards as well. They are set as a precondition before GSP plus can be granted. The Sri Lankan Government are sensitive to that issue and I think that we ought to think of using those provisions at this time.

Andrew Love: We must send the message that we are friends of Sri Lanka but that we cannot stand back and watch as this crisis unfolds. We cannot do nothing. Yes, there is expertise within the UN, the EU and the Commonwealth, and that ought to be used. The hand of friendship is offered and we hope that the Sri Lankan Government will take it up.
	The UN must be seen to be doing more. It is not just a case of, Let's have these discussions behind closed doors. We have to say publicly, within the forums of the United Nations, that we as a Government and we as a Parliament stand out against what is happening in Sri Lanka and that we will do our utmost, publicly as well as privately, to stop it.
	My final point, which was raised earlier, is that ending the humanitarian crisis is only the first move. If we do not want to find ourselves in another humanitarian crisis two, three or five years down the road, as has happened before in Sri Lanka, we need a viable peace process. The first thing that we need is a ceasefire, and one now would enhance the prospect of a proper peace process. The process itself is incredibly important and I think that the experience in Northern Ireland has a great deal to offer on how that process should be carried out. Most importantly, the peace process must have international support. Britain, India, the United States and the United Nations must be entirely behind it, and should ensure that it encapsulates all the populations in Sri Lanka and all the different political trends.
	There are moderate Tamils as well as Tamils who support the LTTE: the opinion held by the Muslim community is very different from other views, and there is a range of political opinion even in the Sinhala community. All that has to be taken on board, but if we can bring those people together, there is a real prospect for peace, going forward.

Paul Burstow: May I start by thanking every hon. and right hon. Member who has contributed to this truly great debate? It has highlighted what I think is common cause across this Housethat there should be peace and justice in Sri Lanka for all the people of that troubled island. The debate has been about trying to make sure that we help facilitate our Government in their efforts to do everything that they can to make that a reality. That can happen only through the international action of the sort described by so many hon. Members in their speeches this evening.
	Our purpose has been merely to bring the matter before the House today. We do not intend to seek a Division at the end of the debate, as we want to get the House to speak with one voice on this matter. That is why we drafted the motion as we did. We tried to set out the issues in plain language, in a motion that was direct and to the point and which addressed the concerns of the people of Sri Lanka. Those concerns are shared by many of our constituents, and they have represented them powerfully to us over many years, months and weeks, as the situation has worsened in that country.
	We need to make it clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a ceasefire is absolutely essential, and that it must happen now. We have to make it clear to the LTTE that it must not stand in the way of anyone seeking to escape from the absolute nightmare that people are currently living in. We must also emphasise that there can be no solution of a military nature to the conflict in Sri Lanka. In the end, military action simply sows the seeds of bitterness and ensures that there can be no reconciliation whatsoever in that country.
	The Sri Lankan Government may be able to win a war on the battlefields, but they will not be able to win in the end. Every shell fired, every bomb dropped and every rocket launched simply causes the last shreds of international support and goodwill that the Sri Lankan Government ever had to be lost. That is why the ceasefire is essentiala point made time and again by hon. Members from all parties across the Chamber.
	However, access is also essentialfor relief organisations, as many hon. Members have argued so powerfully, and for human rights organisations and the international media. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) was right to highlight that part of our motion. There is an urgent need for the international media not just to arrive in Sri Lanka and report on the carnage, but to stay and report on the process that builds peace in the future. That must be essential, not least in the light of the Sri Lankan Government's reputation for suppressing their own media and access for media from other countries. I believe that only two countries in the whole globe have worse records when it comes to ensuring access for the media.
	Day by day, the humanitarian crisis has worsened. As the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) made clear in her speech, what is unfolding is not just a crisis but an absolute catastrophe. The Minister noted in her opening remarks that 50,000 Tamil civilians are trapped in just five square miles. They are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea by an army set on a military objective that has no regard for the civilians in its sights. Those civilians are under fire, and they are sitting targets; it is no wonder, then, that so many of them are coming out injured, or that so many are dying.
	The ones who escape face the prospect of the welfare camps, which are little more than concentration camps. Given the history of the Sri Lankan Government's intent not to settle people afterwards, what is the future for those who eventually wind up in those camps? There must be free and unfettered access to the camps, both for them and for the relief and human rights organisations as well. We need food and medicine, and we need human rights to be respected. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) was absolutely right to raise concerns about the growing numbers of people who are said to be disappearing from the camps.

Paul Burstow: That point is absolutely central. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) acknowledged, in opening the debate, the leadership that the Prime Minister has given, and the leadership that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) has shown in his work as the Prime Minister's special envoy. We wish him Godspeed on the journey that he is to make with other hon. Members in the cross-party delegation. We hope that it achieves its objectives.
	Talk to Tamils in Parliament square, either today or on any other day on which they are there demonstrating, and one will determine the anger and frustration at the slowness with which the international community is moving on the issue. So how can it be right, as has been mentioned in the debate, that the International Monetary Fund is considering a loan of 1.9 billion to Sri Lanka? I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), winds up the debate, he will tell the House that any such loan will, at the very least, have preconditions placed on it to do with securing unfettered access for the UN and other agencies that need to go about their work on behalf of the common good.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton also asked about genocide, and asked the Government to seek a legal opinion. As a signatory to the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, surely the Government should do just that. I hope that the Minister can give us a positive response on that point.

Michael Foster: First, I would like to thank colleagues from across the House for their thoughtful and powerful contributions to this timely and important debate. I am glad to hear that we are to unite behind one motion, so that the sentiments that have been expressed by Members in all parts of the House will ring out loud and clear from this Chamber. I will use my remarks to address some of the issues that have been raised, and to restate the severity of the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka. I should also like to reassure the House and the Tamil diaspora in the UK that we are sparing no effort to bring relief to those affected, and are working with the international community to push all parties to find a long-term, sustainable solution to the conflict.
	However, as several speakers have pointed out, including the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), the suffering of the people of Sri Lanka will not end with the fall of the remaining strongholds of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. We and the international community have continued to make it clear that there can be no military solution, and we have called time and again for a ceasefire. As I discussed with the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), lasting peace in Sri Lanka will only come about through a fully inclusive political process that takes into account the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lanka's communitiesSinhalese, Tamils and Muslim.
	I should like to put on the record the Government's response to concerns expressed in the debate about genocide. We will call for an early investigation as to whether crimes have been committed against civilians.

Michael Foster: I should like to make a little more progress, as there are issues that I need to address.
	I was in the north of Sri Lanka only two days ago, and I saw for myself the conditions in which some of the 180,000 displaced people are living in the camps that have been set up around Vavuniya. About 113 of them have arrived in the past 10 days, and they are exhausted and traumatised. Many of them have travelled for two days without any food or water to reach the camps. While I was there, I met several people who described to me the terrible conditions in the area from which they had come, and they expressed genuine hope and desire that one day soon they would be able to return to their homes and be reunited with their families.
	Many thousands of civilians remain trapped in the conflict zonethe exact number is unknownliving in constant fear for their lives, in the most basic conditions. The conditions on that tiny strip of land, less than 5 square miles in size, were described by people on the ground as absolute chaos and mayhem. Civilians are trapped in constant fighting, and throughout the area, every humanitarian need remains unmet. The situation is deteriorating rapidly. Furthermore, there is repeated evidence that the LTTE is forcibly recruiting civilians, including children, to fight, as well as using lethal force to stop them escaping the conflict zone. The House will agree that such behaviour is utterly unacceptable, and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
	There is almost no international presence in the conflict zone. The International Committee of the Red Cross is the only international humanitarian agency that has been able to operate in LTTE-controlled territory. Since September, it has evacuated 11,500 casualties and their carers by sea in difficult circumstances and at considerable risk to its own staff and volunteers. There are plans to evacuate a further 1,500 people in the coming days. While I was in Sri Lanka on the Government's behalf, I paid tribute to them and all those involved in providing humanitarian support in the region. DFID will continue to provide financial support to the ICRC to enable it to continue its life-saving work.
	Another rapidly growing humanitarian case load consists of the internally displaced persons who have managed to escape the conflict, and are held in camps. Once they arrive, civilians are held under military control, with freedom of movement within, but not outside, the camps. Although humanitarian agencies have been working hard to provide for the needs of those people, the Sri Lankan Government were not fully prepared for the most recent influx, and there remain huge unmet needs for shelter, water, food and medical assistance.
	While we welcome the Sri Lankan Government's efforts to improve living conditions in the camps over the past few days, there is no room for complacency, and it is clear that much more needs to be done to ensure that all basic needs are met. The camps are from ideal, but in the words of the civilians I met on Monday, they offer safer and better conditions than they experienced in the conflict zone. However, I have to put it on the record that the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian agencies by the Sri Lankan Government has meant that the response has fallen short of what is needed. The international agencies are ready to respond, but continued restrictions on personnel and supply chains are causing further unnecessary suffering. We have consistently lobbied the Sri Lankan Government to allow full and unrestricted access for humanitarian agencies, and we will continue to do so.
	Specifically on access, we are calling for an immediate humanitarian pause in hostilities to stop the terrible daily suffering and loss of life, and to facilitate the safe and dignified exit of all civilians from the conflict zone; the immediate re-starting of food and other relief shipments, especially medical supplies, to those trapped in the conflict area; greatly increased UN and international presence in the conflict area; a continuous and permanent international presence at both the Omantai and Killinochchi screening points to ensure protection for those IDPs who have escaped; unhindered access to IDP camps in Government-controlled areas for NGOs, the UN and donors, and an immediate lifting of restrictions on personnel and supplies; and for the Government of Sri Lanka to uphold international principles of internal displacement at screening sites and in camps.

Alan Johnson: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a further statement on swine flu.
	We continue to watch with concern the situation in Mexico and the USA, and to be guided by the World Health Organisation about further changes to the alert level. On Monday evening, the World Health Organisation raised the alert level to 4. That indicates that there are clusters of outbreaks and that the disease is being passed from person to person. In a press conference late this afternoon, the WHO indicated that although the alert level is still at 4, we may be approaching a phase 5 alert. That would mean that there are large clusters of outbreaks but that person-to-person transmission is still localised, which would suggest that the virus is becoming increasingly better adapted to humans. The WHO message is clear: countries across the world must do everything in their power to prepare for the possibility of a full-blown phase 6 pandemic.
	I would like to update the House on how this very fast-moving situation is affecting the UK. It was confirmed on Monday that there were two cases of swine flu in Scotland. Both patients are recovering well. As the Prime Minister told the House today, there are now three additional confirmed cases in the UK. A 41-year-old woman from Redditch and a 22-year-old man in north London have both contracted the virus. The 41-year-old is in isolation at home and has already responded well to treatment. Five of her close contacts have also been treated with antiviral drugs. The 22-year-old man in London has been admitted to hospital.
	The other confirmed case is a 12-year-old girl in Torbay, in Devon. The Health Protection Agency has identified that she has been in close contact with 50 people. As a precaution, antivirals have been given to a total of 230 people in the schoolthe entire school year. On the advice of the Health Protection Agency, the head teacher is closing the school today. It will be closed for approximately seven days, including the weekend.
	All cases that have been confirmed so far are among people who have recently been in Mexico, which is the main affected area. So far, all those who have contracted the disease have experienced relatively mild symptoms and are recovering wellthat is all those outside of Mexico.
	In light of recent events and to strengthen further our contingency plans, I have taken the following steps. I confirmed in my statement on Monday that we have built up a significant stockpile of the antiviral drugs, Tamiflu and Relenza, to prepare for this situation. Both those drugs have proved effective in relieving the symptoms of those who have been infected, but we will now increase this stockpile to cover 80 per cent. of the population. That does not mean that we expect anywhere near that number of people to be affected. It does mean that we will have enough antiviral drugs to treat 50 million people, and make sure that all front-line NHS staff have their own supplies of antivirals as a preparatory measure.
	In addition to increasing availability of antivirals, we are increasing our stockpiles of antibiotics. Although antibiotics have no impact on the flu virus, they will be essential for dealing with any complications such as pneumonia, which might arise from infection.
	On face masks, as the chief medical officer reiterated today, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the widespread issue of such masks to healthy members of the public can stop the disease from spreading. Moreover, they can give false reassurance and encourage people to ignore basic and straightforward hand hygiene measures, which have proved effective. However, specialist and other types of face mask are useful for front-line NHS staff who care for infected patients, if the face masks are the appropriate type, worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with good hygiene measures.
	Although we have a supply of face masks for NHS staff, we need more. In the past 24 hours, we have completed contracts for more than 60 million masks, which will start to become available this week. They will be both surgical and respiratory masks, giving staff a broad range of protection when they come into contact with infected patients.
	Providing information to the public is one of our strongest lines of defence. A mass public health campaign will begin tomorrow, with print, TV and radio adverts. They will warn the public about swine flu and remind them to cover their noses and mouths with tissues when they cough and sneeze and, then, to throw the tissue away and wash their handsthe same good, basic hand hygiene advice that applies to all types of colds and to seasonal flu. In addition, a leaflet will be dropped through people's doors from next Tuesday, providing information on the steps that they can take to protect themselves from infection, and telling them what to do should they contract the virus. From tomorrow, members of the public who want further information will be able to ring a single number, 0800 1 513 513, for regular recorded updates on the situation.
	The threat that we face is serious, but we have never been as prepared for a pandemic as we are now. The plans that we have in place are robust and have been thoroughly tested. Scientists know more about flu now than they have ever done. When our country last faced the threat of a flu pandemic, in 1968, there was no national plan and most measures that are available today did not exist. If a pandemic emerges, no one can turn back the tide, but, with international co-operation, scientific endeavour, effective plans and dedicated front-line staff, we can reduce its impact and ensure that we avoid the level of sickness which was experienced in the three pandemics of the last century. I shall ensure that Parliament is properly updated as the situation develops.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman asked some very important questions. On antiviralsthis also relates to one of his other pointsat this stage we have the ability to isolate and contain this flu. As he says, it is mild so far, so we can use the antivirals as a prophylactic at the moment. That is one reason why we have ordered extra suppliesso that we do not dilute the provision of antivirals if we do get to the stage of a full-blown pandemic. The use of antivirals is indeed in preparation for treatment but also, on a prophylactic basis, a preventive measure in all the outbreaks that are occurring at the moment, so that we can contain them.
	As far as NHS staff are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the framework we have announced is for NHS staff and staff in adult social care, and he made an important point about that. NHS staff are being issued with Tamiflu as a prophylactic. It is actually more important to them than face-masks, so that is the idea. The problem with people using it as a prophylactic, as the chief medical officer would say if he were at the Dispatch Box, is that they have to keep taking it, and then when they stop taking it, they become immediately prone. However, it will help NHS staff to have that there ready for the next stage.
	The hon. Gentleman asked when the supplies will be ready. It will be the end of May at the latest, in accordance with the contract that we have signed. The antibiotic stockpile will cover about 14 per cent. of the population, in accordance with the strategy.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of contact tracing, which has worked very well both in Scotland initially and in England. It is a very important part of the strategy, and the Health Protection Agency and others are helping. The HPA's announcement today was that every single flight that comes in from Mexico, wherever it lands, will be met by its officials, and that we will ask the airlines to keep the records that they normally destroy after 24 hours for at least a week. There will be other measures to ensure that we can better use contact tracing quickly.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about school closures. As he well knows, the framework mentions trying to keep schools open, because if we close the schools, nurses will have to look after the children and we will get into a bad situation. At the moment, during this phase 4 containment stagewe have to make a distinction between the phasesit makes sense to close Paignton community college. The initial decision by the head teacher and the education authorities was to close it for a week, and obviously they will review that based on advice from the HPA.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the national flu line. The concept of the flu line does not exist anywhere else in the world. We signed the contract with BT in December. That line will be set up for a stage when we are in considerable difficulties and people cannot leave their home, or are advised not to, so that they can ring a number and find a nurse at the other end who can ask some simple questions and give them a code, and someone can go on their behalf to collect the antivirals. That system will not be up and running until October. We can discuss all the reasons why afterwards, but in the current situation it will not be available until then. Every single health authority has been told to build into its plans arrangements on the assumption that it will not have the flu line available, and those arrangements look very robust. I am considering ways in which we can improve them, perhaps by getting NHS Direct and its single number to be part of them. We are currently considering all the possibilities for doing that, but if we cannot have a replica of the national flu line, we will have robust systems for distribution of antivirals around the country when we move to that phase.
	We know nothing further about Mexico at the moment. As far as I know, there is no further information. The World Health Organisation is very aware of the need to ensure that the matter does not become a case of rich versus poor. Curiously, there have been no cases in Africa. The WHO feeling was that, given the number of people with low immunity, cases would have been reported there, but, at the moment, that has not happened.
	Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not here, I think I can safely say that we would not follow the route that Egypt announced today. As I said on Monday, we see no reason to affect the British pig industryand no reason for any country, anywhere to start slaughtering stocks.

Norman Lamb: May I also thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement and for keeping me directly informed on a daily basis about the development of the potential pandemic?
	Clearly, it is commonly accepted that this country is one of the leading countries for preparedness, but now it has come to applying the plans. It is important for people to remain calm, but that requires confidence in the system, and confidence that the procedures are robust, that there is absolute clarity about the advice, and that all parts of the systemfrom the national to the regional to the localwork in concert.
	There was a report in today's  Evening Standard and on the BBC, which raises some concern about clarity of advice. First, it appears that there are shortages of Tamiflu in pharmacies in many parts of the country. What is happening to ensure that Tamiflu gets to the pharmacies so that doctors and patients can get hold of it when needed?
	There are reports in London of confusion about whether health protection units or GPs should carry out the tests. There is also confusion about whether patients should go to the GP practice. A case has been confirmed directly to me of a patient being told to go to the GP. There are other cases of people being advised to stay at home and that someone will visit them. Will the Secretary of State provide absolute clarity on all those matters to ensure that people understand what to do?
	The Secretary of State said that masks are available only for health and care workers, yet he is ordering 60 million. That seems a substantial number for that purpose. Will he clarify precisely the range of people who should use them? Will they be available for informal carers, who look after people at home? If so, will advice be given to that end? If someone is confined at home because of a potential outbreak, what about other people in the home? Can they carry out their normal business and leave the home, or should they be confined, too?
	On school closures, it is an anxious time for parents, with many schools preparing for the exam season. Are there contingency plans in place and will advice be given to the education system to ensure that people understand what is supposed to happen?
	There are reports today that the French will make a request to the EU tomorrow to suspend all flights to Mexico. What is the Government's response to that?
	How much money has been allocated in the Department of Health to tackling the potential pandemic? Will the Secretary of State confirm the assumptions on which the Department is working about its progression?

Alan Johnson: On the important question of the availability of antivirals, it is important to stress, as we did on MondayI certainly did in a conversation with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)and make it clear to the public that the Tamiflu that can be bought at the chemist is not depleting the stocks that we have made available in the event of a pandemic. Those stocks are protectedthey are in warehouses and they are secure. Obviously, we must take measures, as the various regulatory agencies have done, to ensure that no system of selling Tamiflu is developing now. Measures have been taken to avoid that and to ensure that we keep stocks of Tamiflu available for the patients who need them, rather than for people who are stocking up personally.
	I have read some of the reports about London, and we will ensure that matters are clarified. Certainly, the leaflet that people will receive from Monday and the advertising that goes out tomorrow will make what happens clear. The health protection units will be crucial to ensuring that we get to the people who have symptoms of swine flu. We will ensure that we put all our resources into isolating and dealing with those cases properly.
	The advice that we give to patients is to contact their GP on the phone or NHS Direct if they feel that they have symptoms and to take it from there, not to go to their GP's surgery.
	The figure of 60 million masks has to be seen in context. Some of them come from different suppliers and have to used and replaced, depending on the supplier and the quality of the mask. Sometimes masks have to be replaced two or three times a day or even hourly. That is the thing about face-masks, and that is why I emphasised how important it is that we have NHS staff who are trained to use them. If people do not replace them regularly or if they do not wear them or dispose of them properly, they could make the problem worse rather than better. The numbers of masks that we need cannot be defined at this stage, but we know that we need lots, because we are not talking about one for each person. Rather, we need replacement masks as well.
	As for our best analysis of how swine flu is spreading, we depend on the WHO's advice. There is no one in greater authority, more respected or in closer touch with the WHO than the chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. His reputation is standing us in good stead. He has close links with the WHO, and we are ensuring that we receive information very quickly about its assessment of how things are going. It is important that, instead of individual countries deciding to go solo on this issue, international co-operation continues to drive the science.

Hugo Swire: Many schoolchildren and their parents in Devon and elsewhere will be very concerned about this, not least if there is an extension in terms of quarantining schools that may have these outbreaks. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that there is provision for those who are barred from attending school when it comes to their exams?

Alan Johnson: I will talk to my right hon. Friend, but at the moment it is far too early to be thinking about that. I repeat that we are looking to isolate and contain this, which means it makes sense to close the school in these circumstances. I hope that other schools will not be affected, in Paignton or anywhere else, but we need to look at this on the basis of which phase of the situation we are in at the moment, and the advice of the local education authority and teachers. We will also have to deal with the situation around exams, which we dealt with during the floods a couple of years ago, as part of those measures.

Phil Woolas: This Government respect the will of the House of Commons. As the Prime Minister said today, this Government took the first action to provide justice for the Gurkhas and enable them to settle in the United Kingdom. Under this Government, the first ever rights of settlement for Gurkhas in Britain have been granted, and 6,000 of them have applied successfully to settle in this country.
	We have also introduced equal pay and pensions for the Gurkhassomething that had not happened previously. We doubled the pensions of people staying in Nepal and increased the overall pension for Gurkhas, especially those at a senior age. The guidance that we introduced last week will increase the number of Gurkhas eligible to come to this country by 4,000 or, including families, about 10,000 people.
	However, we recognise the strong feeling in all parts of the House on this subject. As was recognised in the debate this afternoon, this is a complex issue with wide-ranging implications. The cost of implementing the decision of the House of Commons could well run into billions of pounds. The Government also have an obligation to consider the precedent for future decisions on other immigration categories, and wider Government policy. We cannot, therefore, responsibly or fairly rush into the formulation of new policy. We can and do commit to immediate action on individual cases, and we are setting a clear time frame for the next stage of the reform.
	In light of the decision of the House, I am bringing forward the date for the determination of the outstanding applications to the end of May. That will ensure that those who qualify under the guidelines now in force get confirmation of that as soon as possible, and we will report to the House the outcome of this work. In addition, based on that work, and recognising the strong feeling of the House, we will come forward with proposals for the next stage of our reform of the rules, to ensure that the Government continue to deliver a fair outcome for ex-Gurkhas and their families. We will publish this next stage before the summer recess.
	I said in the House earlier that we cannot foresee circumstances in which ex-Gurkhas in the UK, who have served this country so well, would ever be removed from the United Kingdom. I can now say, in addition, that anyone whose case is considered under the current guidelines and does not qualify, whether in the UK or in Nepal, will not have that decision implemented pending the publication of the next stage of our reform.
	The House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs has indicated its intention to conduct a hearing on this issue next week, and I welcome that. In addition, I will share our review of the applications with the Committee, once it has been completed. We will consider the guidelines published last Friday in the light of the decision of the House today, and we will introduce proposals based on the experience of our consideration of the outstanding applications.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the statement. First, he asked whether the Government will be able to look the Gurkhas in the eye. In this afternoon's debate and in my statement, we have explained the proud record that we have in providing support for current and ex-Gurkhas, but clearly both sides of the House feel that we need to go further.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the basis for my figures. The lesson of today is that it is easy to form policy in opposition. It is easy to make pledges in opposition, as the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Bramallno Labour supporter hesaid in an article in  The Independent on Sunday, which I commend to those Opposition Members who may be tempted to crow. The fact is that the commitment to the Gurkhas and their families and dependants would incur public expenditure for the taxpayer, and the responsible behaviour for a Government is to calculate those costs and not rush into decisions.
	Thirdly, in response to the hon. Gentleman's reasonable questions, I can assure him that we will cost the policy that he has announced on the hoof today. It appeared to me that that took his leader by surprise. The hon. Gentleman has swapped an immigration cap for an immigration helmet. If he fulfils his pledge to the Commonwealth servicemen that they will have the rights that he wishes the Gurkhas to have, his policy for a cap on immigration would have severe implications for tiers 1 and 2 of the new points-based system. In fact, we calculate that the numbers would wipe out tier 1 all together. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman trying to square that circle [ Interruption. ] It is characteristic of him that he chunters rather than answers the question. The Conservatives' policy would involve a cap as well as a separate tier.
	The hon. Gentleman asked [ Interruption. ] Listen to this point, because the Gurkhas deserve our respect. The hon. Gentleman asked whether any Gurkha would be removed. I think that he acceptshe made this point in the debatethat there are certain provisos and a presumption on this point. The policy situation is that removals are looked at case by case. No Government can give a blanket general policy on deportation for fear of setting a precedent that the law could apply elsewhere, with unintended consequences.
	I made the position of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very clear: we cannot envisage circumstances in which people involved in the applications will be deported. In recognition of the debate this afternoon, I give again the commitment that we will not take action against people from the 1,500 who do not meet the current guidelines until we have clarity on the new guidelines. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), whose debate it was, accepts the genuine intention of the House in that regard. The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) asked for real substance, and I think that that measure will be the test. We are committed to it.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me advance sight, albeit fleeting, of his statement, which was obviously done in some haste. I thank him, too, for responding so quickly to the requests of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who asked that he came to the House and made a statement as soon as possible in response to the House's clear view this afternoon. That was a victory for democracy and for the will of this House.
	Frankly, that vote was an historic moment. It was only the fourth defeat of this Government since 1997. However, I am trying to make a point not about party politics, but about the widespread feeling across this House that the Gurkhas were not being treated as fairly and equitably as they should be given the exceptional service that they have rendered to this country. We had to move beyond looking in detail at the penny-pinching aspects of this decision, and we made a rather larger statement about what we felt to be our moral obligations to the Gurkhas, given that they have served with such distinction and have been prepared to lay their lives on the line for us.
	The test of what the Government do will be actions and not words. I welcome the most important aspect of this statement, which came at the beginning when the Minister said clearly that this Government respect the will of the House of Commons. In his response to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), he slid a little way back into the to-ing and fro-ing of the earlier debate, but I hold him to that early statement, because that is the fundamental point.
	I have some detailed questions about the statement, and particularly about the costs. We have now had three estimates of the likely costsone of 1.5 billion, one from the Prime Minister of 1.4 billion and now one from the Minister, which states that the costs of implementing the decision could well run in to billions of pounds. We have an entire absence of detail about what the Home Office, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence think that the costs are. At no point in today's debate were any of the details spelled out, and I believe that it would be very helpful for the Home Office to put a note in the Library to spell out what it believes the public expenditure implications are and, importantly, what it thinks that the revenue implications should be. The House should remember that if we allow indefinite leave to remain to a large number of extremely hard-working, diligent and skilled men, who are still young, there will be revenues for the Exchequer that can be put off against those items of expenditure.
	I understand that much of the detail will need to come later, but I seek reassurance about one aspect of the statement. The Minister says that he cannot foresee circumstances in which ex-Gurkhas in the UK who have served this country so well would ever be removed. I very much welcome that, as I am sure do hon. Members from across the House, because that was the clear implication of what we voted for this afternoon. However, I am concerned about the circumstances under which those people will be in the UK. For example, would they have temporary permission to work? Will they be able to survive in a way that does not push them into

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not considering what happened this afternoon. I am considering the fact that my policy has always been that a Minister comes to the House and gives information. This Minister has done that, and now Back Benchers and not Front Benchers have to get questioning him. The best thing that I can do is call the Minister to respond.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) asked a number of questions. I am sorry if the appearance is given that the Government are penny-pinching. It is the responsible act of a Government to look at the potential cost implications for the taxpayer. That would be right in any event, but it is especially right in the current circumstances. The fact isand the hon. Gentleman accepted as muchthat, in advance of new guidelines, we do not know how many applications and settlements there will be. We can only make estimates: we will do that to the best of our ability, but without political interference from Ministers and based on the best available advice.
	The hon. Gentleman said that there was a hint of sliding back in my statement. I was not at all intending to slide back from our commitment that the Government recognise that we must implement the will of the House of Commons. I was trying to make the partisan political point that his policythat is, the one set out by the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green)was made up on the back of a fag packet. The policy set out by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, of course, was made up on the back of a matchbox.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked about costs. I answered his point before, but I am not aware that I used the 1.5 billion figure. The 1.4 billion figure is our best guesstimate, but I must tell the House that that is an annual figure that will not apply forever. If, as a result of decisions for Gurkhas, the policy to be adopted by the Government and accepted by the House were to allow settlement rights for Commonwealth soldiers and former soldiers that went beyond those currently available, there would be implications. In our view, we believe that in total they would run into billions of pounds. I do not say that as a scaremongering tactic. We lost the vote, so it would serve no purpose to say that now. I say it only to inform the House.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh then mentioned the revenue implications, but the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), has pointed out that the Government anticipate that older members of the Gurkhas will tend to take advantage of the change. That is recognised by the Gurkha campaign, and there is already anecdotal evidence that that is the case.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about deportations. I remind the House that the Government have powers on discretion anyway, consequential to the Immigration Act 1971. I think that all Members of the Houseapart from one right hon. Gentleman, who is not listeningwill know that we have discretion under the 1971 Act, which of course means that we have more flexibility than is provided under the strict guidelines.

Phil Woolas: I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for saying that I agreed to come before the Committee. I did agree to do so, but I suspect that I would not have had a choice if I had not agreed; I would have been there anyway. As I hope he knows, I respect that; I think that Select Committees do a terrific job.
	There are implications for other areas of immigration policythe House can have a debate, but that is a fact, as former Immigration Ministers on both sides of the House have recognisedand there are unintended consequences, which is why we took so long, particularly regarding the issue of Commonwealth soldiers. If hon. Members do not think that there would be legal cases in the courts very quickly as a result of an expansion of policy on the Gurkhas, they should reconsider their position. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, however: we will take the Select Committee very seriously and share our findings with it, as I said in the statement.

Menzies Campbell: The Minister is to be commended on finding a reverse gear quite so quickly. However, does he regret the fact that the Government failed to accept not only the letter but the spirit of the judgment and the action for judicial review last September? Does he now accept that if the Government had accepted the spirit of that judgment, they would have been spared their embarrassment, and the Gurkhas and their dependants would have been spared both uncertainty and anxiety?

David Drew: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will press him again on the need to look at the impact on Nepal. On the one hand the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), slightly changing his view, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), said that there were considerable revenue advantages of Gurkhas settling in this country, which was somewhat criticised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). This is not a zero sum game. If there are considerable advantages for people settling in this country, there will be an impact on Nepal. Will he assure me that, with the Nepalese Government and the Indians, who are obviously privy to this particular arrangement, he will look at the arrangement to ensure we consider its whole impact? We may have to talk to Department for International Development about ways in which we provide support, because it is wrong that another sovereign state is being asked to lose out because of changes here.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend's point about consideration in policy decisions of the country of origin is extremely important and is often left out of the debate about immigration and migration. The DFID budget for Nepal is 56 million, and the amount of money in pensions for Gurkhas in Nepal is 54 million. This is an extremely important contribution to the Nepalese economy, and one that we should not ignore. Consideration of immigration policy should rightly include this area. Remissions are a good thing and are important to many poor countries, but we can teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime, or give a man a fish and feed him for the day, and it is important that we do the former.

Phil Woolas: I quite understand that, but I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will respect that it is not within my remit to determine what the House debates. Clearly, I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. I suspect that, on this issue, however, the House will have a view.

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka

Elliot Morley: I am grateful for the opportunity to have an Adjournment debate to raise my deep concerns about the effect of proposed cuts on Humberside probation trust, the severe threat to front-line jobs of compulsory redundancies, the threat to the effectiveness of a highly rated and successful probation service, and the threat to the jobs and livelihoods of my constituents and those of my colleagues in the Humberside region.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will note that such is the concern about the cuts in the service that I am joined here by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson), for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), and I have also received representations from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight).
	I start by stressing that the Humberside service is highly regarded. It was one of the first probation services in the country to achieve trust status. It is made up of dedicated staff, who do an excellent job, often in difficult circumstances. The director general of the national service, Mr. Philip Wheatley, stated:
	The challenges we face in delivering our ambitious objectives are considerable. We must sustain and build on the excellent work being done by staff in probation and prisons who work in challenging circumstances with some of the most vulnerable and demanding people in society.
	He continued:
	There has been a significant decline in adult re-offending since 2000 and latest figures show a further fall of 13 per cent. between 2005 and 2006.
	That demonstrates the commitment and dedication.
	There seem to be two problems currently facing the service. The first is the implementation of the new formula-based system. I can understand the need for efficiencies, but any approach must be fair and rational across the National Offender Management Service. Something is clearly wrong when the formula has such an impact on the Humberside service compared with other services. I know that it is based on conviction rates, but it makes no distinction between types of offence. Although Humberside may have a lower conviction rate than the national average, I understand that the percentage of convictions for serious crimes is higher than average, with all the implications of that for stress on staff and demands on the service. Front-line cuts will not help and I do not believe that they can be justified.
	The second problem seems to be Humberside probation trust's application of the cuts. Up to 60 compulsory redundancies have been threatened and discussed with staff, with 82 per cent. of those redundancies falling on front-line staffprobation officers and probation service officers. How can any compulsory redundancy in the service be justified? How does that fulfil the aspirations of the Ministry of Justice and the Humberside service?
	I have received many moving representations on the matter from constituents, who are worried about the position. I had a meeting this evening with Helen Burton, a Unison steward and probation service officer from Hull, and Tim Wilson, who is the national officer for the National Association of Probation Officers. I have also had letters from organisations that are involved in working to reduce crime, expressing their concerns that the proposals will not help that goal.
	I was especially shocked to hear that 11 trainee probation officers will have no posts to go to. That is not only a personal tragedy for those individuals, but a terrible waste of the money that has been spent on training those staff. I am also told that case loads for existing staff will increasein some cases, from an average of 40 to triple that amount.

Ian Cawsey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. As a former member of the Humberside probation trust board, I have seen for myself the fine work that the staff do.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a good stated policy on probation workthey want probation workers to spend less time on office work and on computers and more time dealing with offendersbut that it would be hard to achieve in Humberside if all the cuts go ahead?

Elliot Morley: I certainly agree that we can see the success of the probation service in terms of the reduction in reoffending rates and overall reductions in crime. None of our constituents wants an increase in crime, and the probation service is an important part of that. The Government have recognised that there are bound to be pressures when we are in a recession. For example, they have quite rightly given additional funding to jobcentres to deal with people who have been unfortunate enough to be made redundant. Such issues therefore have to be recognised.
	I met the chief executive of the Humberside probation trust, Mr. Steve Hemming, to discuss the proposed cuts, following representations that I had received from constituents. He told me the steps that he was taking to try to encourage voluntary redundancies, but according to my constituents who work in the service, many staff have received formal notification that their posts are at risk of compulsory redundancy. I also share the concerns that my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole and for Cleethorpes have both put to me, as well as those made in union representations, about the timetable for the redundancies, which is due to commence on 6 May, with dismissals potentially in early June, appearing to be going at breakneck speed. According to the chief executive, part of the reason for that is to do with doubts about the availability of end-of-year flexibility to the service and the way in which the three-year budgets have been put in place. The issue is so serious that even if restructuring is needed, which is arguable, it should certainly be managed in a way that avoids compulsory redundancy.
	I have three requests for the Minister tonight. I know that he is a sincere and good Minister, and he has certainly done a lot of work to improve and strengthen the probation service. I do not believe that he in any way wants to see cuts such as these. My first request is that he please look again at the formula and, in particular, at the disproportionate effect that is having on Humberside probation trustand, indeed, a number of other probation trusts. Its impact is disproportionate. Secondly, will he please look at the issue of end-of-year flexibility and the way in which the budgets have been applied, to ensure that there is some flexibility within the National Offender Management Service budget as a whole, to prevent front-line cuts and compulsory redundancies? Thirdly, will he contact the chief executive of the Humberside probation trust as a matter of urgency and ask him to put an immediate hold on the compulsory redundancy process while the Ministry of Justice looks at the issue and discusses potential options with him?
	I repeat that I do not believe that the problems facing the Humberside probation trust are consequences that the Ministry of Justice intended or that it would support. I look to the Minister to give my constituents some hope, to look at the problem that the service is facing in a fair and rational way, and to ensure that there is an efficient, effective service and that peopleespecially those doing an excellent job in front-line positionswill not face the threat of compulsory redundancy, with all the uncertainty, upset and destabilisation that that brings.